User talk:Betacommand/20080301

Trusted person

Betacommand;
Although I haven't asked him about it yet, would you consider User:Lar as a trusted user to whom you'd be willing to release the BC source code? In the vent that he won't do, and rather than having a lot of probing guesses, how about some examples of who would be a trusted user? - 152.91.9.144 (talk) 01:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not Betacommand, but I gotta ask...why? Everyone knows what the bot does. What it does is rather simple; it checks to see if the name of all articles the image is used in is/are located on the image description page. If not, it puts a {{dfu}} tag on it. You don't need source code to see that. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a fair question. Releasing the code to someone like Lar, who not only enjoys an almost absolute level of trust* would have a couple of effects. We could get an outside opinion of actually how complex/powerful/whatever the bot is.

• There has been some, ah, contention regarding this. I did note before, there's a clear catch-22 in refusing to release the code while simultaneously saying "it's not rocket science."
• If, to play the devils advocate, you and BC are totally correct and it's useless to release the code at least then Nadesuka (and me!) will shut up about it.

152.91.9.144 (talk) 23:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

* He's got, I believe, every level of access that it's possible to have: Steward, CheckUser, Oversight, etc. All he has to do is get on ArbCom and he'll automagically transform into EssJay. Heck, even the motley crew at Wikipedia Review find him acceptable!

If a user wants to ask about getting access to the source, drop me an e-mail. β^_command 00:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

So you're unwilling to commit at all who would be an "Trusted person?" - 152.91.9.144 (talk) 03:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

That looks like a non sequitur. Try emailing him. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 10:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the question of who Betacommand trusts or not is a bit of a red herring, really, and people should stop badgering him about it. Nevertheless, I've mailed him asking for a copy of the code, with the view to being able to comment when people say it's easy or hard, as well as perhaps, a backup of sorts, because the various tasks the bot does are very important (I confess I don't even know the exhaustive list of them but I know there are quite a few). Hope that helps. And tangentially, no, I'm not planning on ever standing for ArbCom. NO thank you very much, find another sucker. You guys should have elected Giano when you had the chance. :) If I'm ever damfool enough to change my mind, quote this and laugh at me, please... hopefully that would scotch the candidacy and that would be that. ++Lar: t/c 10:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand and I have communicated and he has shared a version of the bot code (at this time, just the code relating to the fair use (WP:NFCC#10c) checking, not all the tasks) with me. I can make comments or answer questions as needed but only in general terms, I will not reveal the specifics of how the code is written. I may not always respond instantly as in most cases I will want to check with Betacommand to make sure I'm interpreting what I see in the code correctly before I comment. (also, the code may have changed from the snapshot I received) This is not a "backup", just a static snapshot. Betacommand indicated to me he has made other arrangments to preserve the code in case something happens. I hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 15:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Responsibility

In my opinion, Item #7 in the list above ("I will not add rationales for you as the uploader it is your responsibility NOT mine") is inconsistent with the spirit of Wikipedia. It is, of course, the responsibility of the uploader to provide enough information to justify the use of a protected image. However, when one Wikipedian doesn't live up to his or her responsibility, it is better for the rest of us to take up the responsibility ourselves and improve the encyclopedia rather than to nag or kick our colleagues around. I think it is reasonable to hope that someone coming across an incomplete Fair Use rationale could at least determine if the rationale is EVIDENT (a book cover on an article about the book, for example) before putting the image up for deletion and throwing it in the face of the uploader. I base this opinion on the spirit of the policy statements at Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, and Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. We're all here for the same purpose, and that's to build an encyclopedia, not to discipline each other. --Dystopos (talk) 14:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• I should clarify. My beef is not with the media content policy, but with the practice of nagging users instead of correcting the problems when the means of correcting them is evident. When it is not, then a request for help in fixing the issue is better than a demand for someone else to fix it "or else". --Dystopos (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

disruptive

I agree these "Nazi" bots should not be allowed to be disruptive of wikipedia operations.

"BetacommandBot will be an ongoing bot, run whenever I can run it, or feel like running it." _{(C&Ped from the bot userpage)}
Seems kinda egotistical of the user who created this bot in my opinion.

I don't like contributing to wiki because of bots like this one as I feel bullied. Flood of SYNs (talk) 21:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Very highly agreed SYNs. This bot and bots/users like it are flat-out -ruining- Wikipedia. "Assume Good Faith"... bots can't assume! I believe the only bots allowed to run should be for maintenance purposes only, and run by the highest of admins, and nothing less. --75.5.176.16 (talk) 06:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This bot has challenged a number of photographs for which the copyright holders have given their permission for use in Wikipedia. It appears that the classification of copyright codes have changed over time. In all cases new codes have been used and a justification included. If permission is granted, surely there is no need for repeated threat of removal.

The most resent photos are

• Image:Dray.jpg
• Image:Cl41.jpg
• Image:Cl84.jpg
• Image:Cl89.jpg

I have deleted the warnings from these images.

DonJay (talk) 02:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

That's entirely not the case - Wikipedia-permission-only images are specifically not allowed under WP:NONFREE. There needs to be an actual justification. (Some photos do have both, e.g. there are some historically important images from Associated Press which have Wikipedia permission, but also have a fair use justification on them.) Please take care before acting on presumptions - David Gerard (talk) 10:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggested tweaks to the bot messages

There's a lot of noise on wikien-l about the bot in the past few days, but there are also some useful suggestions you may wish to take on board for the bot messages to give it better public relations while it goes about its important work - e.g. noting that the actual deletion is not automatic but is human-reviewed, the bot only tags images for admin attention; etc. We should be able to give the bot better public relations without changing its valuable work. And btw, keep up the good work :-) - David Gerard (talk) 10:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The messages comes from templates. {{Di-disputed fair use rationale}} goes on the image, and {{Di-disputed fair use rationale-notice}} goes on the uploaders talk page. There is also one for the article talk page, but I don't remember that one. I would have appreciated if anyone could make these messages less intimidating. Rettetast (talk) 15:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I hate this bot

Its so annoying, it trys to delete almost every image! --Hicktunus (talk) 16:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The bot does not delete any images, that is restricted to admins. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

But the message it leaves does intentionally create the impression that it deletes images. Which is the sort of bullying blowhard behavior so typical of this bot. Clayhalliwell (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It uses the standard warning template {{Di-disputed fair use rationale-notice}}, approved by consensus, Betacommand and his bot have never edited that page. Yet another person who can't accept this bot only applies the existing policy, created by consensus. Jackaranga (talk) 04:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

See, this is exactly the sort of "Two wrongs make a right" apologism that I see bandied about Wikipedia entirely too often. Clayhalliwell (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree completely

The bots are completely fucking annoying. The worst is when some asshole admin comes along and deletes the image, but the frame and caption are left in an article, with a now dead red link to a non-existent image. Real professional. There are likely thousands of editors who no longer bother to contribute to WP in a meaningful or constructive way simply because of the deletionists, and in particular deletionist bots.139.48.25.61 (talk) 17:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Deleted images are either removed by the deleting admin or User:ImageRemovalBot. Rettetast (talk) 18:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[makes furnace noises] S-s-s-s-S-s-s-s... [scares BetacommandBot out of bed] --Snuffleupagus 18:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Fear only exists for mere humans. BCBot is not human. /me brings the T-888 protocols of BCBot online and targets Snuffleupagus. β^_command 22:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Tom Hanks

I was curious as to why you added the WikiProject Religion template to this article. Has something extraordinary happened that has changed the direction the article should be taking? Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Karaku

Hello Betacommand. On User:Karaku's userpage it says he/she uses vandalproof. If this is correct, I suggest you 'de-approve' him/her. He/she violated several 3RR violations, and has been blocked several times. He/she hardly ever shows good faith, and is rarely civil. If you are to reply, please do so on my talk page. Thanks, - Milk's Favorite Cookie 02:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

See also, external links bots

There now seems to be consensus of using a bot to follow the layout order of see also -> references -> layout. Maybe you can reply and update how your bot might work or if it's acceptable? Thanks! [1] [2] Mahanga^Talk 19:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Next phase

I've been thinking about the next phase you mentioned BCB woul be entering. If I remember correctly, it will comment out images from articles in which they have no FUR on the image page. I'm wonering if these couldn't be further split. Say first tagging all images that have a file link whose title is not in the image page. It would be an informational tag, much like our Wikiy or Cleanup tags and be cross-posted to the uploaders talkpage/article talk. After some period of time, say 30 days, BCB would scan the cateogry created by that info tag, and at that point, comment the image out of the article. Basically, it would give the uploader a chance to make sure the image is being used the way they wanted it and give article watchers the chance to fix the FUR/remove the image manually. How does this sound? MBisanz ^talk 03:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Request your advice on an image

Image:Sea org.png

Fair use is claimed on (5), count 'em, five articles:

1. Galactic Confederacy
2. Sea Org
3. Space opera in Scientology scripture
4. Symbols of Scientology
5. Xenu

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't fair use really only appropriate for the article Sea Org? Cirt (talk) 10:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The image use appears to be appropriate to me. Logos are not limited to one use, afaik. Lara❤Love 16:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I have actually heard quite different on this, AFAIK, it's best to just use this image on Sea Org, and it's pushing it on all these other articles. Perhaps Betacommand (talk · contribs) can help explain this to me, or point out something related to policy and/or consensus on this. Cirt (talk) 17:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand, any input here? Cirt (talk) 05:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Ive been busy and havent had time to look into this. β^_command 05:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I've seen that, quite understandable, take your time. Cirt (talk) 05:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, if/when you get a chance to comment about this image's use, could you message my talkpage, and/or just tag the image with disputed fair use yourself? Cirt (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Asterix cover page images deleted under fair-use rules

Hi,

I had uploaded a bunch of Asterix comics cover page images. I had scanned the images with a personal scanner. When I had uploaded the images, I had used whatever template was applicable and I think the images qualified under the fair-use policy. Do you think you can restore the images and I can then add the correct template with fair-use policies? Also, maybe you can consider changing some of the parameters for your bot as I added these images almost 2 years ago and other asterix comic page covers are still intact.. The images were deleted too quickly for me to take action as I am not a regular contributor to the wiki.

Thanks Nikhil Nikhil (talk) 04:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand doesn't delete the images. He simply has his bot tag them and they are then put into a category. Editors and admins go through these categories and typically fix the ones they can while the rest are deleted. If you'd like to have these images restored, you'll need to request an admin do this for you. You'll also need to link the images. Try WP:AN. Regards, Lara_Love^Talk 15:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

BABS again

Hi Betacommand: I guess we'll try the template way — anything that shows the BirdTalk template on its discussion page. The category method just isn't working... Thanks! MeegsC | Talk 13:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

bypass redirect, making way for new template

Re: actions by BetacommandBot (talk · contribs) - thank you! Cirt (talk) 21:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal of redlinked categories

Hi Betacommand

I see that your bot is now busy removing redlinked category entries from articles, in addition to its other tasks. Just to take one as an example, I see that in this edit it removed Category:Conservative MPs from Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 5th Marquess of Salisbury. The edit summary was "removing Category:Conservative_MPs" - there weas no explanation of why this was done.

This was not helpful: the correct category is at Category:Conservative MPs (UK), and problems such as this are much more likely to be picked up if the categtory is a redlink than if it is simply removed.

I have just checked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BetacommandBot, and at the top of that page there is a very clear list of the tasks for which is aproved, and this is not one of them. I have also checked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval, and can find no sign of any recent authorisation there.

I presume that I must have missed something, so please can you explain where and when BetacommandBot was authorised to perform this task this task. Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

its CfD work. removing deleted/non-existent categories is something that BCBot has been doing for a long time. β^_command 16:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You didn't answer the question, which was "please can you explain where and when BetacommandBot was authorised to perform this task this task?" BrownHairedGirl raises a good point, and the removal of redlinked user catagories has no benifit and is only going to rile people up as well. Where was this bot task authorized again? ➪HiDrNick! 17:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

here is approval for CfD work, which is what Im going, removing deleted/non-existent categories. β^_command 17:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This isn't doing CfD work though - it's removing all red linked cats, and some which shouldn't be removed. People sometimes want red linked cats in their userspace, yet BCBot is removing them for no reason. There's a lot of debate about this, if you want to carry on removing every red linked cat then get approval, but I seriously doubt you will get it without a lot of discussion. when people clear out CfD cats, they work from lists - not every single red linked cats. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Bot blocked - you haven't got approval. Obviously I'll take this to AN/I for a review. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I object to these edits: [3] [4] —Ashley Y 06:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalproof

Hi! How are you? I am a registered user of Vandalproof and have been using the application for the past couple of months. However, I havent been able to use the application for the past two days. Whenever I open the application, I get a message asking me to update to a newer version. However, the version I use is VP137. I dont understand the meaning of this message. Also, being a recent changes patroller, I find it very difficult to warn vandals without Vandalproof. Could you please help me? -Ravichandar 19:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

due to recent changes in the site, vandalproof needed updating. β^_command 21:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 3rd, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 10	3 March 2008	About the Signpost

Wales' relationship, breakup with journalist Rachel Marsden raises questions about possible improprieties	Eleven users apply for bureaucratship
Signpost interview: Domas Mituzas	Role of hidden categories under discussion
Book review: Wikipedia: The Missing Manual	Military history WikiProject elections conclude, nine elected
Best of WikiWorld: "Extreme ironing"	News and notes: Encyclopedia of Life, Wikipedian dies, milestones
Dispatches: April Fools mainpage featured article	WikiProject Report: Football
Tutorial: How to use an ImageMap	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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) 07:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Man, you are tough!

You take all these comments, and don't get discouraged over them! I don't think I could ever deal with all this...you have quite the tough skin! Following the ways of Compwhizii...

Soxred93 | talk bot has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

It's a bot. Bot's don't care: they just do what they are programmed to do. --Sugaar (talk) 05:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Other question at that request

Betacommand, have you seen the earlier questions from MBisanz at that bot request? "If I could ask the question of which of BCB's 4-phase NFCC approach have been included in this bots approach? Will this bot follow the no-bot tag rules for userspace and usertalkspace?" Just letting you know in case you missed them. And on a personal note, can we please try and get something sorted out amicably? I do want to see a separation of the non-free image task from the other tasks, but if, as MZMcBride said here, the name of the bot was chosen to tally with my proposal, it would make sense that others code the other stuff that is needed. Unless you really want to do all the coding yourself. Carcharoth (talk) 12:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

all current phases will be transfered to the new account. I dont like the idea that more than one programmers code is being run on the same account. As I have stated my proposal is an all or none deal. Im tempted to just withdraw it now and say fuck it, and quit trying to be nice. at ever turn I seem to get harassment. β^_command 12:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Who's harassing you? Would you like me to have a word with them? Carcharoth (talk) 13:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Block reinstated

I have reinstated the block on BetacommandBot (talk · contribs), because the bot has:

1. resumed removal of categories without clearly explaining why they are being removed
2. resumed category-related before the Bot owner has fulfilled his obligation to repair the damage caused by previous runs of the bot, per the policy WP:BOT which says "The contributions of a bot account remain the responsibility of its operator. In particular, the bot operator is responsible for the repair of any damage caused by a bot which operates incorrectly."

I have posted a longer explanation at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand#Block_of_BetacommandBot_reinstated. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting the damage. I remain very concerned that you took no steps to repair the damage until the bot was blocked, and that your response to the block was to describe it as "unfounded bullshit". I think that at this point an RfC would be appropriate, and will see if I can find the time and energy to open one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Dont waste your time on an RfC. if you want to file something file an ArbCom case. your actions were completely out of line. calling your actions Bullshit is an understatement. what you forced me to do was violate several policies, WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:VANDALISM for starters. I do not see the removal of red cats as damage. what I do see is a problem is dumbass admins using WP:BLOCK in a dispute to force their point of view. instead of coming to my talkpage and discussing it you have to be a dick about it. β^_command 17:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with you deleting my warning -- or deleting this after you have read it -- as long as you realize that I am an Admin. (Have a look.) And I understand you feel under a lot of stress but you need to temper your language. If you can't be civil -- take a break. Or someone may force you to. To repeat something that gets said dozens of times an hour, Wikipedia will be here tomorrow; there's nothing here that needs to be done now. -- llywrch (talk) 23:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

BetacommandBot problem?

I had seen that your Bot had re-reverted an edit that it made on the Lenny Dykstra page, putting back in a category that did not exist anymore. I figured I would let you know about this, in case the bot has made other bad edits lately. Whammies Were Here 22:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The Bot is restoring categories it removed in a previous run, per the lengthy discussion here. The restoration of the redlink category is not a bot error - there was consensus this and some other redlinked categories shouldn't have been removed from articles, so the Bot is helpfully putting them back.

The category in the Lenny Dykstra article is redlinked but populated - it needs either creating or sending to CfD. Given how narrow it is I'd suggest CfD, but I'm no baseball expert so I'll leave that decision to others. Euryalus (talk) 22:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, further examination shows the category has already been to CfD [5] so BetacommandBot was right to remove it from the article, and didn't need to restore it. The Bot owner is currently rolling back around 2000 edits per the discussion I linked above and must have overlooked that this one didn't need reverting. Thanks for re-removing the category manually. Euryalus (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For all the crap that you've been facing for the past few weeks. Maxim(talk) 23:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I would say this barnstar is very well-deserved. --EoL talk 23:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggested rename of User:Non-Free Content Compliance Bot

Cross-posted to User talk:Non-Free Content Compliance Bot, User talk:ST47, User talk:Martinp23, User talk:SQL, and User talk:Betacommand.

Would you (all four of you) consider asking for a rename of this bot to User:NFCC Bot (10c)? The reason is that I hope the proposal at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria compliance will gain support, and part of that is a plan to create the following bot accounts to take on the roles of enforcing compliance of those aspects of WP:NFCC that can be checked by bots. User:NFCC Bot (3a), User:NFCC Bot (3b), User:NFCC Bot (7), User:NFCC Bot (9), User:NFCC Bot (10b), User:NFCC Bot (10c). Since the code proposed to run on User:Non-Free Content Compliance Bot is a clone of BetacommandBot's task of enforcing the bot-enforceable part of NFCC#10c, I think the rename I am proposing will help make things clearer. Could you post replies at User talk:Non-Free Content Compliance Bot? Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 01:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

List of bus operating companies

Could you please provide an explanation for this edit? At first glance it definitely looks like an instance of wikistalking, especially given your lack of previous edits on the article. Orderinchaos 02:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I've removed your rollback Betacommand - obviously this is going on AN/I for a review. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Assessment bot help?

Regarding Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 43#Bot to rate WikiProject quality assessment on talk page as same as other project tags and previous discussion at Wikipedia:Bot_requests/Archive_13#Assessment_bot - can you help me out with assessing the unassessed stuff for {{WikiProject Theatre}} ? Cirt (talk) 23:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Could really use your help on this one, (especially with matching up unassessed things for {{WikiProject Theatre}} that have already been assessed for other project tags as WP:GA and/or WP:FA), because it will make things a lot easier with regard to working on improving the Portal:Theatre. Cirt (talk) 07:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Why did betacommand reverse itself?

Just curious why it logged a complaint then reverted itself: Image:ICAHD_logo_small.gif. It seems to have had a valid complaint -- there was no fair use rational listed there. --MattWright (talk) 08:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

there was an issue with the API that caused some miss-tagging, the best option was a full revert. β^_command 14:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

BAG/BRFA issues

Please read and, is possible, discuss :). Thanks, Martinp23 18:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Statistics on success of image tagging

Hi. Do you have any statistics on how many images tagged by BCBot (and friends) have been deleted, and how many have since been brought into compliance? Thanks, Bovlb (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I dont have those numbers. what I can say is that when BCBot started we had ~380,000+ non-free images. that number is down to about 280,000 currently. β^_command 19:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. So that's a difference of 26%, but we can't tell how it breaks down between deleted non-free images, images now tagged as free use, and (negatively) newly created/tagged non-free images. Bovlb (talk) 20:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#BetacommandBot

I've listed an arbitration case under this tentative name to resolve the longstanding conflict basically surrounding this issue. This is a message to inform you that you're listed a party there. Maxim_(talk) 23:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Calling foul on a Commons image

Image:Heart 70s.jpg is an image which is available as a "self-made" over on Commons. The uploader, Sidneyjunior89, has had a number of his pictures called into question mainly for more detail on sourcing. His response was to blank his talk page and walk. Most of his pics are low quality building and landscape shots with a few flags and logos thrown in. That he took a picture of Ann and Nancy Wilson back in the mid 1970s is a bit of an oddball/far-fetched addition. I am finding this picture on a couple of online blogs and... comparing to the subject matter of the user's other uploads I am calling a foul on this image. I am not 100% on it... but my AGF for it is nil and it just doesn't seem right. 156.34.231.56 (talk) 01:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Bug Report, Unspecified-Source Routine

While cleaning up Talk:W-inds., I noticed a syntax error at #Infobox conversion, which I presume was intended to post an "Unspecified source for Image:1st Messgae.jpg," rather than clog up my User and Date stamps when posted 23:47, 24 May 2007. Ignore if this bug is already fixed at your end, similar to 08:55, 8 March 2008. B. C. Schmerker (talk) 09:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Reverts

So why is BCB going back and reverting hundreds of its image warnings? -Icewedge (talk) 04:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

there was a problem with the API that may have caused improper tagging. BetacommandBot (talk) 04:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I see, although, I did a bit of spot checking and all the warnings I looked at seemed to be valid. But whatever. Good luck. -Icewedge (talk) 04:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Bots should not write in the first person

"I notice the image page specifies that..." is highly inappropriate. There is no "I" there. This bot is not a self-aware entity. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

About your BettacommandBot

It targeted an image that already had Fair Use Rationale: Image:Negasonic.jpg.--Gonzalo84 (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You needed to provide the full disambiguated title that the image is used on (Negasonic Teenage Warhead wasn't sufficiet, it needed to be Negasonic Teenage Warhead (comics) which is where the image is used.) I've corrected this for you. (Also, when talking about images on talk pages, you can preface the image with a colon to prevent it displaying but still linkable: eg [[:Image:Negasonic.jpg]] --MASEM 16:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: {{WorldCoin}} and {{WorldCoinGallery}}

Sorry, didn't see that you'd rep[lied to my comment (could I ask you to drop a note on my Talk: page when you do, please, just so I don't miss it — I'm jobhunting at the moment, so not really following my watchlist at the moment, sorry :o)

Wrt Image:1 New Israeli Sheqel (1994-1995).jpg, the image is non-free, and should be labelled as such. It just happens to be a non-free image that doesn't need a fair use rationale.

Could you please take a look at excluding {{OTRS}}-tagged images from the bot? Repeated tagging of images that should not be tagged is a bug in your bot and could be construed as vandalism. Whilst I don't agree with the way in which you implement the copyright policy, I'm certainly willing to concede that it is "within the rules", as it were, and I'd just like to help optimise that. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 18:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

if an image is non-free it requires a non-free rationale, end of story. β^_command 18:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

To expand a little. OTRS images have been released under a free license, otherwise OTRS wouldn't be involved. Such images should be tagged with the appropriate free license, not the original non-free license. If tagged correctly, the bot won't tag the image. The bot code should not be changed to exclude OTRS images, as being tagged by BCBot (albeit for something different) alerts to the improper use of licensing tags on the image. Lara❤Love 18:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Bot

BCB is stupid and pointless and ruins wikipedia. --{{123Pie|Talk}} 20:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

BCB is definitely stupid, being a bot, but the idea of BCB is far from stupid. It has a definite point, to help us bring Wikipedia into compliance with our copyright policy. Its operation in practice has both good and bad effects on Wikipedia. If you have a specific complaint, I suggest that you present it specifically and politely, or no-one will be able to assist you. Bovlb (talk) 20:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Everybody has the right to learn, hence wikipedia was created. If somebody wants to learn about the minigate, they have the right, and maybe they wanna see a picture of it, but don't have the stargate box-set, they have the right. --{{123Pie|Talk}} 21:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

For better or worse, our rights have been abridged by laws that construct new rights (such as copyright) for others. If you feel this is wrong, then you should be writing to your legislative representative, not Betacommand. Bovlb (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalproof issue

Hi BC. Know you're busy, but think this won't take much of your time. Please will you visit the brief discussion at User_talk:Ale_jrb#VandalProof and approve/reject this request from a former problem editor who I will vouch for as a reformed member of the community. Many thanks. --Dweller (talk) 10:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit summary phrasing for user talk pages

Since the posting on the user talk pages is in some sense a courtesy rather than a reprimand, it might be good to change the edit summary from "notifying user of invalid Fair Use claim on $1" to "notifying user of incomplete Fair Use claim on $1". Usually all that is needed is to mention the page the image is used on, and the slight change in wording is more encouraging to the uploader. The message you leave on the talk page is clear enough that an incomplete fair use claim is not sufficient to stop speedy deletion, so there should be no trouble in softening the blow in the edit summary.

By the way, (as a BAG kind of guy) do you know if there is some sort of sample wikipedia where you can test a bot or test mediawiki code changes, where the wiki is at least roughly the same as en.wikipedia.org? For some bot requests it seems natural to just do a few edits on the real wikipedia, and assume you've thought of everything some crazy editor might have done, but for others it might be better to do a thousand edits and then check. Basically if the task is very narrow, or runs on fairly similar articles, then a few edits suffice, but if the thing is supposed to run on "new pages", then really, how can you predict what sort of line noise will be in such an article? Similarly, I test mediawiki patches on my wikis, but you can't really test things that require the huge infrastructure that is on en.wikipedia (all the templates for one, but also just the sheer number of articles). Perhaps one can just have the bot write the edits it would have made to a local file, maybe as a diff? JackSchmidt (talk) 05:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Can't respond to the first part, but for the second: http://test.wikipedia.org. Lara❤Love 03:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Apparently, I can't speak for either part. That wiki isn't for bot testing. Sorry. :/ Lara❤Love 03:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand2

About the account Betacommand2 (talk · contribs), do you use this account for Wikipedia:SOCK#Segregation and security reasons? If so, would you mind updating the user page to explicitly say this, as otherwise people might think you were contravening WP:SOCK#SCRUTINY? At the moment it just says "this is my Test & VandalProof account", but you have been using the account to take part in discussions. This has been discussed at the request for arbitration under Locke Cole's statement. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 00:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the talk page. My edit was not vandalism. Thanks.67.188.208.203 (talk) 01:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Please add this image to your ignore list

Image:1 New Israeli Sheqel (1994-1995).jpg keeps getting marked, even though it has all the proper templates and information. If this bot tags this image again, I will block it for disruption and ignoring previous requests. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

the image has both free and non-free licenses, since its OTRS I assume the non-free should be removed. that is why BCBot tagged it. β^_command 13:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I understand why the bot tagged it, but surely you can have it check for things like the OTRS template and then ignore those that have it. That seems like it would be a simple thing. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 15:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

those templates contridict each other. an image cannot be both free and non-free. Since it was OTRS confirmed I removed the non-free template. β^_command 17:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Correct. It's GFDL under an OTRS ticket, which is blatantly not non-free. --kingboyk (talk) 14:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I explained this above. If an image has been released under a free license through OTRS, it should not be tagged with the former non-free license. To have both a free and a non-free license is incorrect. For that reason, BetacommandBot should not be programed to avoid images with OTRS tags that also include a non-free license tag because when the bot tags it, albeit for something else, we're able to catch the problem and correct it. There is no issue with the bot here. This was a case of human-error on the part of whoever added the license tags. Lara❤Love 03:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Would it be better than for the Bot to kick images that have tag-conflicts (OTRS,Trust Flickr review, etc) to a cat other than DFUI, where they are likely to be deleted due to the sheer number of images? MBisanz ^talk 03:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe any admin would delete an OTRS image. If it did happen, it would be quickly restored. Lara❤Love 13:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

heads up

I converted the png image to svg here the old image has been deleted. β^_command 04:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't edit SVG files, nor can some others who are working on it (although I can save files as SVG). Please don't just delete images without asking me (especially on the fact that I made the image and have all the original files). I've asked for it to be restored. JRG (talk) 04:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You deleted the image again, specifically after I told you not to do so and after I left a message on the page asking for it not to be deleted. There is a legitimate reason for it not to be deleted, and I would appreciate you following that rather than simply deleting it off your own back. Kindly stop. JRG (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Assessment bot help?

Regarding Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 43#Bot to rate WikiProject quality assessment on talk page as same as other project tags and previous discussion at Wikipedia:Bot_requests/Archive_13#Assessment_bot - can you help me out with assessing the unassessed stuff for {{WikiProject Theatre}} ? Cirt (talk) 23:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Could really use your help on this one, (especially with matching up unassessed things for {{WikiProject Theatre}} that have already been assessed for other project tags as WP:GA and/or WP:FA), because it will make things a lot easier with regard to working on improving the Portal:Theatre. Cirt (talk) 07:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me know if you're too busy to address this at this time, or if you know of another way that I could find out more info on how to do this task myself? Cirt (talk) 12:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

Are you running a bot on this account? Your recent edit speed seems unusually fast - eg, 50+ edits in a two minute period. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

its a simi-auto script, very similar to how twinkle operates. β^_command 15:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Category names

Can your bot do anything useful with this list? —Random832 18:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• yes I can take care of that for you. creating a to bot that does that should not be that difficult. where did you get the information for that report? given the standardization of that list I can create A bot that clears that in about ten minutes. β^_command 19:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I made the list with a couple queries off the Toolserver. In a nutshell, I took all the redlinked categories, sanitized the results, converted to all uppercase, then matched that list against existing categories (again, converted to all caps). I can give you the list in pretty much any format you want, because it is created by a script. Also, how do you think it is best to handle categories created by templates (such as the sockpuppet categories)? I imagine that will overly complicate things (although perhaps you already have that figured out). Thanks. - AWeenieMan (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Okay, sockpuppets are a bad example, I have struck all of those from the list because the template creates the same category for impersonators as it does for sockpuppets. Anyhow, the templated category question still stands. - AWeenieMan (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I'll deal with any created by templates (i.e. the bot can put the list of pages and categories in a holding pen type page or something) - if there are any in any significant numbers I can work out a course of action for someone with a bot or AWB to do, if not, people can clean them out by hand. —Random832 19:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
        • depending on the situation, BCBot may be able to fix the templates. If the template is also in the cat there will be no problem, otherwise its a bitch to figure out. (using <includeonly> with categories is a pet peeve of mine and is really annoying) but otherwise BCBot will clear those without a problem. the ones that BCBot cannot fix will require some good sleuthing in order to find the templates that create them. β^_command 19:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The instructions at the top of this page

Hi. I was wondering if you could remove or alter the following sentence in your instructions: Read this talk page and its archives before registering your complaint. It is likely someone has already registered a similar complaint, and that complaint will have been given an answer. You have over 20 archive pages. Each of these pages has over 150 headers. The entire archives would take months to read through. I don't think it's reasonable to demand that from newcomers. I'd understand if you compiled an FAQ and required users to read that, but I don't think asking (usually new) users to read what would be several volumes if it were printed is reasonable. Thanks. Puchiko (Talk-email) 21:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:MystCover.png

Please be more careful about how you operate your bot - Image:MystCover.png has a perfectly valid rationale, which was slightly damaged by a vandal, but the only real damage done was that the '}}' was removed from the end of the template. I have now fixed this. Please remember that it is entirely possible to write a perfectly valid rationale without using that template, though this incident seems to suggest that BetacommandBot is merely searching for the inclusion of that template. _TalkIslander 15:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

you were refering to the wrong page in the rationale, see here where I fixed the issue. β^_command 15:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Right, OK. Serves me right for not going over things with a fine-toothed comb. Thanks for fixing it ;) _TalkIslander 16:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Stop posting complaints to User:Paranoid

Stop posting complaints to User_talk:Paranoid. This is abusive. Paranoid (talk) 17:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Its not. Its being nice and telling you that it may be deleted. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 22:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Superuser bot

You appear to be running automated scripts from your admin account. Exactly one edit per minute for the last 12 hours, and bursts of 30/min yesterday. Do you think that perhaps this might not be a good time to be skirting the limits of the bot rules? AKAF (talk) 13:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand is not an admin. Is the script doing anything wrong? Other users also use scripts (Twinkle, AWB), so I don't see the problem there. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(Twinkle, AWB) are interactive scripts. I'm talking about automated scripts. I didn't know beta wasn't an admin (comments partially struck). AKAF (talk) 14:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This probably has something to do with #Category names just above (fixing the red category links). -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This is one edit every minute, suggests to me that it is pretty interactive, though a burst of 30 per minute may be a bit quick (though with tabbed browsing, and with a properly/perfectly working script, those speeds can be quite done if it is just a matter of pressing the OK button 30 times a minute). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly one edit in every minute for the last 12 hours. Never 2, Never 0. AKAF (talk) 14:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC) (Strike that as incorrect, on further checking.)AKAF (talk) 14:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It's probably throttled in order not to flood the recent changes (which is kinda the reason behind the bot flag), but I hope BC is not crazy enough to stay 12 hours in front of a computer, pressing OK every minute. Personally I am not thrilled with an unsupervised bot on a user account, but considering this is a one time pass, and that it allows the edits to be unrelated with BCBot and seems to be harmless, I don't think it is too bad. -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec x2, posted anyway to show that):

• 12:12, 11 March 2008 (hist) (diff) m Weiscam HS-1‎ (fix category caps) (top) [rollback]
• 12:11, 11 March 2008 (hist) (diff) m Template:Footer Movies Chiranjeevi‎ (fix category caps) (top) [rollback]
• 12:08, 11 March 2008 (hist) (diff) m Amapola Cabase‎ (fix category caps) (top) [rollback]
• 12:07, 11 March 2008 (hist) (diff) m Petr Barna‎ (fix category caps) (top) [rollback]

And:

• 10:36, 11 March 2008 (hist) (diff) m Australian labour movement‎ (fix category caps) (top) [rollback]
• 10:35, 11 March 2008 (hist) (diff) m Saint Darius‎ (fix category caps) (top) [rollback]
• 10:34, 11 March 2008 (hist) (diff) m East Carolina Pirates football, 1950-1959‎ (fix category caps) (top) [rollback]
• 10:34, 11 March 2008 (hist) (diff) m East Carolina Pirates football, 1940-1949‎ (fix category caps) (top) [rollback]
• 10:34, 11 March 2008 (hist) (diff) m East Carolina Pirates football, 1932-1939‎ (fix category caps) (top) [rollback]
• 10:32, 11 March 2008 (hist) (diff) m Harold E. Jones Child Study Center‎ (fix category caps) (top) [rollback]
• 10:31, 11 March 2008 (hist) (diff) m Pervasive Data Integrator‎ (fix category caps) (top) [rollback]

There are some holes and bursts.

As I don't see mistakes (have not thoroughly checked) this seems fine to me. I hope Betacommand had a tiolet-break at 12:08 ;-). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

what I did was quickly (IE 500 in about ten minutes) previewed and oked the edits, if the edits were ok, I when ahead and queued them and posted them in a reasonable rate. β^_command 17:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I've suggested to other people in the past that they put something in the edit summary or on their user/talk page to explain an edit rate like that. It is courteous and avoids this sort of discussion. Something like "using a script to implement a pre-checked list of edits". Though it is a pity that the edit summary field is so short when something like this might need to be said. If it needs to be shortened, just link from the edit summary to a subpage in your user space explaining the practice of previewing the edits and then queuing them up for the script to churn through. Carcharoth (talk) 01:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Layout Bot

Betacommand, I know someone else asked you about a layout-related bot a while ago. The idea was to conform article appendices (if present) to the order recommended in WP:LAY. Three editors there are convinced that people will be offended if this is done by a bot, and I don't think the discussion's going anywhere. So here's my interim proposal: Can you create a script that does this, but which only applies it to (twelve thousand or so) articles tagged by the WPMED project? I think WPMED would support a standardization effort, and it would make a good "test case" if it was wanted wiki-wide in the future. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

its already written, but please provide consensus for the idea for WP:MED and ill file a BRFA. β^_command 19:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

We have a couple of technical questions -- would the filters described at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Appendices be difficult to implement? --Arcadian (talk) 04:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Change in image template

Could you change the concern that BCB adds from "invalid rationale per WP:NFCC#10c The name of each article in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate fair-use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline." to "invalid rationale per WP:NFCC#10c because the following items are missing: The name of each article in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate fair-use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline." (addition in italics). This is so that it would make grammatical sense. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 11:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

In the face of so much complains

Since BetacommandBot is the subject of so much controversy and you don't want images without fair use rationale, why don't you give a hand to the uploaders and provide these images with fair use rationale yourself.--Gonzalo84 (talk) 21:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, good point. Instead of adding {{fairuse}} to every picture, so you can have a picture-less world find the info of the picture yourself! _{I had to take the rude words out, so now it dont have its impact but still its point!} --{{123Pie|Talk}} 22:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Guys there's only 24 hours in a day. Betacommand couldn't sort out every image if he had 100 hours a day. There's many thousands of them. Wikipedia is big - very big. --kingboyk (talk) 23:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

My comment (This is going too far) was kindly deleted for "cross-posting", though I thought it could be of interested here too. But let me say that I also find the encounter with this bot very unpleasant, and I disagree with the way it works : no prior discussion, and a threat of speedy deletion, with no human being you can interact with. The amount of complaint is the sign that something is wrong. Baronnet (talk) 23:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

your comment on the bot page was not reverted. what was reverted is the crosspost to this page. things on that page get moved here. if you can call seven days "speedy". Yes I agree something is wrong, the number of users who do not understand/follow our non-free content policy. β^_command 23:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid 7 days is speedy, since the bot targets images that have not just been uploaded, but also older ones, which the initial uploader does not necessarily watch every day. Some contributors may be on holiday, for instance. I think deletion of images that have been used for a long time should be discussed. Baronnet (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Baronnet not only does it notify you, it also places a notice on the talkpage of the article where its used. Im sorry if you want a discussion for older images, but our policy treats them the same. β^_command 23:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The administrators have the last word, they don't delete blindly. The bot just informs. Cenarium (talk) 23:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

At too short a notice, in my opinion. There have been complaints in the past about a too radical and speedy deletion practice : Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand. But I understand that the matter will not be solved in a few lines here. There are deletionists. And I am rather a inclusionist. Baronnet (talk) 23:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I was unaware of this RFAR. This task of this bot was not in cause there. Cenarium (talk) 00:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree : this is a new debate, not the continuation of the RFAR. By the way, I suggest Image:Oxford University Logo.jpg (another non free image which has no fair use rationale) is tagged like Image:Nancy-Université.gif was. We shall see what the reaction is. Baronnet (talk) 00:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

abort mission and try to get it right? Opiumjones 23 (talk) 01:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Besides, many older uploaded images sometimes come from the uploaders own computers. I dowloaded most of my Buffyverse images years ago from now defunct sites or were removed from said sites. As for not having enough time to provide fair use for every photo, many of us don't have enough time to provide fair use for our targeted images. The truth, why should I care if Betta doesn't have enough time for that?.--Gonzalo84 (talk) 14:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Because he didn't make the policy, the Wikimedia Foundation did. User talk:Jimbo Wales is the page you want. --kingboyk (talk) 14:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Policy or not, if the person on a witch hunt can't be bothered to make an effort, we shouldn't be required to look the other way while they continue to draw mass criticism from peers. When these companies in question start making complaints, then the issue can be brought up. Every image in existence was created by somebody somewhere, and these sweeping generalizations are becoming a serious problem. Deleting pretty much the ONLY relevant images that could pertain to any article is only succeeding in making Wikipedia even more of a bland cesspool. What's the new order of the day, original MSPaints for every article? (Kanten (talk) 06:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC))

Oh my god people, suck it up and stop complaining. If you know how to write your fair-use rationales, BC will not delete a single image. He is designed to make sure fair-use rationales (the format, not the wording) are as per wikipedia policies, to ensure all components of fair-use are there, which the ultimate aim is to ensure wikipedia stays as close to the right side of copyright law as possible, to ensure that the images as a whole can remain on here! Fix the rationale, remove the BC tag, and you're done. And if you don't come on wikipedia weekly, or are able to relocate your image to re-upload, and do not write a properly formatted fair-use rationale per wikipedia policies, you have nobody else to blame. /rant. Timeshift (talk) 20:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Your point, while essentially correct, would be better made without the strong language and the ranting. In addition, you are wrong to say "to ensure all components of fair-use are there". BetacommandBot only detects the absence of one aspect of fair use (namely, naming the article in which the image is used), and doesn't ensure anything about the other aspects of fair use. Humans are needed for that, though bots can help and are needed due to the sheer volume and backlog of images. Carcharoth (talk) 21:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well there you go, it's even easier than what I said to make sure BC doesn't tag your images. Timeshift (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Please don't encourage people to evade the bots. The aim is to get correct rationales written in cases where an image is both needed and improves the article. Carcharoth (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not doing any such thing. I'm making the point that the complaints are groundless. Timeshift (talk) 22:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

They are hardly groundless. BC's implementation has been sloppy, ham-handed, and unnecessarily uncivil. I've been here to say it before and will say it again. Given that the management of improperly sourced images is so vital, why isn't there a team of interested and able editors backing up the effort by assisting image posters in preparing proper FURs by offering effective advice or model FURs? Some of that is in place now, but it should have been in place early on. This is supposed to be a community effort after all, not some sort of botocracy, and I don't see why we have to settle for BC's up-yours-learn-how-to-fish-and-don't-bug-me-as-I-do-my-noble-work approach. And no, its not hand holding - its co-operation between community members who have respect for one another. The range of editors runs the gamut from first timers to able veterans and its alarming to see even experienced editors driven to anger by a clumsy bot that is mindlessly rules-based without acknowledging (or making any meaningful effort to acknowledge) the people that make up the project. Wiggy! (talk) 23:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It is up to the fair-use image uploader to ensure they follow the rules. They are the one presented with the screen of information each time they upload a file. They are the ones responsible to ensure all conditions are met. Not anyone else. Timeshift (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Which goes straight to my point that this is a community based project where people help one another instead of mindlessly regurgitating dogma. I fail to see why that is such an alien concept to the rule-bangers. Wiggy! (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The real problem with the implemention done by BetacommandBot is that of policy; specificly the policy of applying a 7 day warning on images that have been uploaded ages ago and to do so in mass. It would have been far less of a problem if 7day warning had been changed to 30 days or more, simply due to the large number of images being tagged at one time. But that is a policy issue that Betacommand does not control. He is simply following policy and for once I can not fault him. For new images the short warning makes sense, for but older images it just does not any sense at all, especially when we have some delete happy admins that will delete simply because the 7day warning had expired. Dbiel ^(Talk) 00:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not as simple as that. Your argument has the stink of "I was only following orders" and BC is in no way innocent of a role in creating an unnecessarily messy situation. If the policy was defective or needed a tune up, why in the world was it implemented with such slavish zeal? And then defended with what was at times unnecessary viciousness? Surely some more palatable consensus could have been reached before hand. It was absolutely no fun trying to write FURs while the policy was evolving and the bot was being modifed to follow suit. Wiggy! (talk) 01:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

the policy has been basically the same for about 3 years. yeah its been cleaned up, and clarified. But its the same non-free content policy that existed 3 years ago. BCBot as been tagging NFCC images for over 10 months now. 7 days is a gracious period. some Images are deletable in 2 days. But I think seven days is a reasonable period. β^_command 01:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

That's disingenuous at best. If it was true folks wouldn't be chasing around fixing logo tags that were just fine two years ago when first posted. Seven days is hardly gracious when you have to deal with a ton of images that are suddenly under the gun. And to suggest that seven days is sufficient flies in the face of all the user comments to the contrary. But I guess that didn't register ... Wiggy! (talk) 01:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Wiggy, I'm unhappy with your "only following orders" complaint. Betacommand does not share Wiggy!'s conviction that seven days is too short a time. If Betacommand agreed that seven days was unreasonable, then he could perhaps be faulted for tagging articles for policy violations. However, since Betacommand agrees with the policy, or if he believed that something else is more important than providing an extended response time (ie, avoiding lawsuits over copyright violations by providing WikiMedia with proof that their policy is actively enforced), then we can't fault him for "only following orders." Wiggy, I think you should stop implying that Betacommand should have gotten the policy changed because you think it is defective. May I suggest that you go to NFCC and propose the very changes that you wish Betacommand had proposed ten months ago? Consider this a friendly {{sodoityourself]] suggestion -- or at least a reminder that you cannot change WikiMedia policies by talking to Betacommand. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope, not interested. I only came to this because so many of my contributions came under threat and my attempts to comply with policy were being undone as the policy was being cleaned up and clarified. I had my turn at making helpful suggestions in both polite and blunt ways and all that got me was variously ignored, rebuffed or headhunted. I understand the necessity of images being compliant. I'm disappointed in how it was handled and the abrasive manner in which so many contributors were treated. It was appallingly frustrating watching people struggling with the thing and basically getting bulldozed as they were being told to stop being so useless/helpless/clueless. I don't get the sense that "sodoityourself", or however you want to frame up constructive user input, was part of the playbook. If you are going to undertake a major change in how policy is enforced it follows that you should think it through and make the best job you can of it. Wiggy! (talk) 01:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Your bot sucks. Someone should consider the image using a brain first. You deleted an image of a screenshot of a program under the idea that it would not fall under fair use. There's.. no conceivable way that anyone would *bother* to violate the copyright on such an image, they would simply make a new image. The actions of your bot do not pass the laugh test. Removing images wholesale makes everyone poorer. JoshuaRodman (talk) 12:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Missing non-free use rationale

Images with missing non-free use rationales should not be tagged with "rationale disputed" but with "missing rationale", i.e. {{frn}}. – Ilse@ 18:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

BetacommandBot is incapable of making that distinction. Carcharoth (talk) 14:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Bot suggestions

I don't know if you actually read this page, but....

I suggest that you provide a "task shutoff" button and possibly a "task shutoff and revert run" button for all new tasks you use the bot for, even if you don't separate the bot into separate accounts for separate tasks. I mean, the bot clearly knows what it did, so it should be able to revert itself. It would be nice if you would allow admins to push the buttons. (If the bot monitors a page, I'm sure there would be no objection to making the page protected so that only admins could push the button.) Certainly "task shutoff" is less disruptive to your work than blocking the bot entirely. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I have that, its called using my talk page. just ask Ryan I stopped the bot within 3 minutes of his posting here. there have been others with faster results. β^_command 15:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't checked, but other admins have claimed you have refused to stop a bot when it works as you think it should rather than as a prospective blocking admin thinks it should, and that you don't respond to a stop request before the bot is blocked, even if you act on it. A button would be simpler. The "revert" button would simplify debugging, as well, even if it's only your button.

Also, something I thought of since I wrote that; if you had the bot create an edit summary indicating which task it's performing, even if only by task number within your task list, it would make it easier for people to see whether it was actually doing an authorized task. (Removing redlinked categories has not and has never been authorized, unless they've gone through CfD. However, it's almost impossible to tell if a category has gone through CfD, so you may have accidentally performed authorized actions. ) If you create edit summaries, that probably only requires changing one line of code. (Note that I haven't checked whether you actually do that. If you do, my apologies.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Something fishy?

On Jan 15 (yes i know quite a while ago) your bot left a message on my page about "Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Pete smyser-scene-is-clean.jpg". However I don't recognize the image name and am fairly certain that I never uploaded it to begin with. Could the bot have made a mistake? If not, is there a way to get at the date the image was uploaded and the IP that was used ? Hirudo (talk) 19:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Being curious, I looked it up. You edited an advertisement out of the cover on April 23, 2006. It was originally uploaded by Peacemover on April 6, 2006. It appears to be an advertisement (not a cover, precisely) for The Scene is Clean by Pete Smyser. Beta probably couldn't have looked it up; it required an admin looking at the deleted content. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

VandalProof

• I see you're the one who approves a lot of the requests for this program. I also filed a request, under my username User:Cro0016, which is now a doppleganger, as i got a Change of username. However, I was never notified whether I was declined or accepted the use of this tool, and I don't know why. Could you have a look for me? I know you're busy, I'd appreciate it if you could have a quick look. I filed the request before my username change, under User:Cro0016. What should I do? Steve Crossin (talk) 10:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Just in case you didnt notice, can you check this out? Its in the link above. Steve Crossin (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, I just realised the error I made, if you have a minute, could you check the Awaiting Approval list? I put my username in the wrong section, but It's been fixed. Could you quickly look, please? Steve Crossin (talk) 16:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Flagbot

Hi, sorry to hassle you. I was just wondering if there was anything more I needed to do on the Flagbot BAG trial now that it's done its 50 edits? If it's just waiting for you or someone else to look at the edits then no probem, I'd just hate for things to be in limbo because I'd not done something, and it would be nice to get it run before Easter. FlagSteward (talk) 11:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Your bot acting strangely

Hi Betacommand. It appears that the unapproved bot running on your account is not functioning correctly.

1. It breaks the link here: [[6]]
2. This edit of another user's comment leaves the comment incomprehensible, and a categorisation on an article talk page of this type makes no sense:[[7]]
3. Also do you think it might be a good idea to avoid user sandboxes? They're not usually targets of general-purpose bots: [[8]]
4. Also this edit I don't understand at all:[[9]]

This is just from randomly looking at your edits in the last couple of hours. Please be more careful. AKAF (talk) 12:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

added numbers to points β^_command 15:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

1. thanks for the heads up that is the first time I have seen that error. I did not notice it during editing.

2. that was an improper cat link see this.

3. there was a issue with category capitalization which I have been fixing, those should be fixed regardless of the namespace.

4. on List of historical autonomist and secessionist movements I added spaces in the section titles and changed Category: Secessionist Organizations to Category: Secessionist organizations

throughout I was making red cat links into blue. β^_command 15:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, obviously I misunderstood some of those problems, I didn't understand about the header spacing, and was confused as to why they were turning up in the diffs. The talk page problem (2) was that you removed the description/discussion of the potential categorisation from the middle of a sentence, and added it to a category at the bottom of a page. This made the sentence make no sense. The bot needs to know that category redlinks on talk pages can be part of a discussion on categorisation, and thus do not follow the same placement rules as in article space. I would think that they should be in-place replaced rather than moved to the bottom of the page, as you seem to be doing. Regards AKAF (talk) 16:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Like I have stated before its not a bot. I understand what your trying to say but you dont seem to understand it yourself [[Category:foo]] places a page in foo, while [[:Category:foo]] is what should be used in discussions and creates a link. on that talkpage the user did not include : in their link and thus that category did not appear in the text, instead it was already at the bottom of the page. β^_command 16:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. Betacommand has this all running OK here now (on his account, not the bot account). But he still need to submit a proper bot request for this and discuss it more widely before moving this sort of thing back to his bot account. Betacommand, if this is one of those short, throw-away scripts that you don't intend to submit a bot request for, and ony ever intend to operate manually on your non-bot account, why not do that more in future and avoid overloading the main bot account with short, one-time script-based runs? Carcharoth (talk) 08:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not something for a bot account, its very similar to an AWB type run. if this was a larger scale fully automatic script I would file a BRFA, but since this was a simi-auto, I did not bother. β^_command 08:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, Thanks for explaining. I was unaware of the inline category use stuff (obviously). Thanks for taking the time out to explain. AKAF (talk) 09:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand, please can you re-read WP:BOT, which stresses that with a bot or any other form of mass-editing, consensus should be sought before the work is done, not afterwards: "Contributors intending to make a large number of assisted edits are advised to first ensure that there is a clear consensus that such edits are desired." This applies even the job is not done from a bot account.

These edits seem like they may in principle have been a good idea, but it would have been better to seek consensus first — and that if you had done so, some problems might have been avoided. Please, before you do any further such work on categories can you explain what you propose to do and invite comments? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand's recent edits have simply been fixing non-existent categories by changing them to existing categories. He is working from a list of redlinked categories with capitalization errors. The list is here. Now for all the things people can fault BC for, I do not believe arguing about consensus over fixing (not removing) redlinked categories is going to be a productive battle (who is arguing that the incorrectly capitalized categories were better for the encyclopedia?). Do you find this task (which is not being performed automatically) to be controversial? I ask because I have always assumed that correcting redlinked categories when they are simple mispellings/variations of existing cats is the proper thing to do. Thanks. - AWeenieMan (talk) 03:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the edit in point 1 above, BC has fixed a cat but broken the link. BHG's concern is not with the "right thing to do", it's with making mass edits where the operator may not be paying attention to each and every one and verifying the results (my words). Would you have made this change yourself and felt you'd succeeded? Franamax (talk) 03:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Franamax, that is indeed my concern. Of course I like to see the links fixed, but I don't like seeing new problems introduced along the way.

I can well understand that problems like that might not be foreseen in advance, but there is a much better chance of them being spotted if other people can scrutinise the plan. Instead, it seems that over 1,000 such edits were made, rather than doing a short test run first. Plenty of people have Betacommand's talkpage watchlisted, so I'm sure that even if all he did was to post a note here, he'd have had some feedback.

If he had done a small test run, one of the points I would have made is that I understood that there was no consenus in favour of alphabetically sorting categories, so a bot shouldn't be doing that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point, and perhaps my reading was incorrect, but my interpretation of BHG's comment was that there should be consensus for the task (my apologies if I misinterpreted this). And to be honest, BC fully acknowledged that he missed that one. It happens to the best of us. I agree that I might not have made that edit, but I don't think it is productive to go any farther than admitting the mistaken edit. And the same goes for the inline category links. But that is just my opinion. I see a lot of net good here (and one example of a bad edit) and would like to think there are bigger fish to fry (but to each his/her own). - AWeenieMan (talk) 04:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

See, the thing with mass edits is, when you make one mistake, even though you acknowledge it, you leave open the question of how many similar mistakes were made. Now someone has to go back over all your edits to check, especially if you're not willing to do it yourself. That's not just BC's problem, it is inherent to all automated editing, there's always the question of confidence in the operator, that they're personally viewing the results. It's no different than me whacking away at some spelling change, say Sakatchewan to Saskatchewan, and I'm messing up each time I correct that spelling. You see one example where I obviously didn't do it right. Now what - are you going to check all my edits where the summaries say "sp."? Check a few, you see I've messed up a few other places and they are (top) - do you start to lose confidence in my abilities? You ask me and I say, oh yeah, I see now I made a mistake one place, but I don't have to go back and check, it's good, someone else will notice the error I introduced. Still confident in me? Franamax (talk) 04:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

As I noted below, there was already an error in the link formatting. So there was a required fix even before Beta made his edit. Not one of those examples shows where Beta made a mistake on a page that didn't already have a problem. And I don't see a need to go check every edit. These mistakes are minor. Easily fixed by whoever comes upon them, and there isn't a need to rush to correct. These pages will be better off because now the original mistake, which had been overlooked, will also be corrected. Lara❤Love 04:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying that in that example, there was once an error which could be found by concerned editors looking at the list of redcats and fixing them; now the redcat problem is gone and there's a glaring error on the page, but it can only now be spotted by a human actually reviewing the page; the majority of humans reading Wikipedia are non-editors; Wikipedia now looks like a bit more of an idiot to the majority of humans. I'm sure that's not what you're saying, but the only reason these now-hidden errors are coming to light is because of all this scrutiny. How many more silly-looking things are now obscured by clouds?(Floyd ref:) One, five, six thousand? Who will come upon these errors and be in a position to fix them? Franamax (talk) 05:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

There was a glaring error on the page to begin with. And if non-editors are browsing user pages and determining errors on them leave Wikipedia looking like an idiot, I think I'll pass on feelings of concern. As I said, there isn't one example of BC making an error on a page that didn't already have an error, and error which directly caused his. Lara❤Love 05:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

This isn't, in my opinion, the sort of task that would need prior approval. It appears to me, as usual, Beta is taking heat for simply editing. The only example that was an actual error is the first one, and that link wasn't properly formatted to begin with. If it was, it wouldn't have been broken by the edit. Each of these examples appear to have spawned from a previous user error. We don't see Beta on those users pages making a little fuss over their mistakes. Is this a big deal? Not in the slightest. Each of these examples shows that there was need for correction already, so he added no extra work to anyone. Kind of like BCBot tagging OTRS images that have inappropriate dual licenses. It tags for something else, but draws attention to the real problem. BC may have made a mistake, but it just drew attention to an already existing mistake. Lara❤Love 03:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Lara, this isn't "taking heat for simply editing", it's feedback on the use of automated process for mass editing. One of the issues to be considered in any task such as this data is not always correctly formatted, and the question of how to deal with errors in the data is always one of the time-consuming bits of any programming task. I don't know if anyone has the energy to review ~1200 edits, so we don't know how widespread the problems are ... but a test run of about 50 or 100 could have been scrutinised.

That's all; it's good idea, but best implemented with community involvement per Wikipedia:BOT#Assisted_editing_guidelines. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

As I stated above, I don't believe this task falls under that guideline. He's fixing errors. That doesn't need community approval to ensure it's a wanted task. The problem is he made some errors along the way, but that's not the point of the guideline you keep quoting. It's to prevent edits from being made that the community doesn't want. Fixing errors is an obvious needed task. Lara❤Love 15:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Consensus on proposal

Per the Community proposal consensus (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand/Archive 3#Community proposal), please implement the recognition, acknowledgement and following of the {{bots}} and {{nobots}} tags by BetacommandBot on user and user talk pages. Please follow up here once this has been done. Please do this in a reasonable amount of time (as in, not a month later or as in, not at all thereby ignoring community consensus on this proposal). Thank you. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 16:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not a community consensus. If you want this to happen, you're going to have to get a wider community consensus that this should happen for all bots, not just one. The discussion you point to does not get enough eyes for you to start demanding this and you certainly aren't a neutral party to start forcing Betacommand to do things. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The proposal was up for a week on the main Betacommand discussion page before being moved to the archives. Secondly, it's not me "forcing" him to do anything, it's the community. If you failed to take part in that discussion, that's your fault. A week later, the consensus says otherwise. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 16:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

As I have stated the no bots template is a joke and I refuse to ever use them. I currently have a very good way to opt out and that is the only method that I plan on using. the no bots template has been known to be abused and I refuse to support such a poorly thought out method. and if you consider 13 people consensus I feel sorry for you. Because I dont consider it that. β^_command 16:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Allstar, this is not community consensus and as I said, get wider attention if you want want to force this - not on some random board that few people even watch. Betacommand does not have to abide by this as it's just a few users saying what they want, by no means a wide community consensus on the matter. Stoop enforcing things to have know right to be doing. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

A very similar thing was brought up at WT:BOT and squashed very very quickly. β^_command 16:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to engage in arguing over it. Just do it. It's consensus. I'll give it 2 weeks before taking from here, to somewhere else. Thanks. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 16:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

With the greatest respect Allstarecho, you have no authority to do anything here so please stop making threats. Betacommand doesn't have to do anything. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

He has as much authority as you do to claim it wasn't consensus. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? —Locke Cole • t • c 05:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It sure looks like community consensus to me and I expect Betacommand to abide by that consensus. Maybe we need to involve a bureaucrat in this if it is your and Betacommands intent to resist this? —Locke Cole • t • c 05:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Umm, Ryan blocked BCB on March 4 over an unapproved task, so I'm fairly certain their not in league together to resist consensus. And Crats have no special power to interpret consensus outside of RfAs and RfBs... Your looking for WP:DR. MBisanz ^talk 05:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

13 people on an obscure noticeboard does not a consensus make. If you want an enforceable consensus, you either need to put notices on various community noticeboards (Village Pump and AN, for example) to draw greater community participation, especially considering the only people who watch AN/B, in most cases, hold biased opinions one way or the other, or propose it on one of those boards. Also, some of those 13 seem to have misunderstood the proposal, based on their comments. Lara❤Love 03:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

So you're of the mind we should have announced it on MediaWiki:Sitenotice then? Come off it. There was a clear consensus reached, and I very much doubt we would have gotten much more in the way of participation had it been spread around even further. And again, where was everyone when this discussion was held? You even commented on other topics on that same noticeboard, but never said a word about it not being the appropriate forum for it. Community ban discussions are held on WP:AN/I, and this is really no different. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

But a lot more people watch AN/I who have no prior history with a given community ban discussion than people who watch AN/B who have no prior history with BC. I'd say keep the current poll and just extend the end date, advertising it in the relevant places. MBisanz ^talk 03:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The link provided doesn't go to a specific section. Where is the discussion? Mr.Z-man 03:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It was shifted around from the archive I think to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Betacommand#Community_proposal MBisanz ^talk 03:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Correct. It has been moved back to AN/B. Everyone saying it being on an "obscure" noticeboard should consider that the thread was at AN/I before someone decided to move the threadt to AN/Betacommand. Notice was given to everyone that the thread was moved. Since that's where the main discussion was moved to, that's where the proposal was held. It was open a week. It was archived with consensus. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 03:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

And my rough count on the Archive3 page was 68 distinct editors (before my brain broke). It's not exactly an "obscure" notice board. Becoming less obscure by the hour possibly. Also, I don't read anywhere on the bots-nobots templates where it says to use this template to control bots, but bots will ignore it anyway. Franamax (talk) 04:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't have been moved off of AN/I at all. Not every BC thread needs to be moved to his subpage so quickly, particularly a proposal that should get community consensus. And why am I to care about how many people edited the page during the time of Archive 3? Was I in that archive? Probably, but I didn't look at the page for about a week, and I missed the poll. So that doesn't mean much. 13 people voted. Maybe that was consensus in 2003, but it's not now... not for something on this scale. However, to be fair, had I seen the pool, I probably wouldn't have voted, as I would have considered it pointless. You can't demand that one bot follow something that's optional. It's already been pointed out that nobots is not required, so you can't required it of only one bot. That's a proposal to be made for all bots. We've been over this. Lara❤Love 04:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I do agree that 13 people on a subpage is a weak consensus. But I do think the community could require things of bots on an individual basis (ideally at BRFA). For instance, we required the first anti-vandalism bot to forgo the Bot flag. MBisanz ^talk 04:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

if you guys want opt-ed out of BCBot notices here is a page to do so. But this is a double edged sword, if you choose to opt out you cannot comment about BCBot, failure to follow the terms of the opt out will result in you being removed from the opt-out. β^_command 04:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Correction, opting out doesn't mean we can't comment about BCBot. Let's just clear that right now. Secondly, I don't want an "opt out" from notices from the rogue bot, I want "opt out" from the bot touching my user/user talk page period, to include not removing redlinked cats. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 04:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Allstarecho, those are the terms of the opt-out, dont like it? then dont opt out. β^_command 04:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Stop being silly. You can't say "if you opt out, you can comment on my bot". Please. This is Wikipedia. Anyone can comment on anything they want to comment on. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 04:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

And I have the right to follow policy and remove/notify all users per policy. Dont like it? tough, I have stated and continue to state that I never have and never will support nobots. I have a method for users to opt out. That is the method that I will use. dont like it, go fly a kite. β^_command 04:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Beta, you might want to reconsider that. Are you saying that regardless of consensus, you will just do as you see fit? Step back a bit and cool down, think it over. Franamax (talk) 04:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

here is what I will do, Ill follow nobots until it is abused. Oh wait that happened over six months ago. also people have tried to force nobots into the bot policy and that was soundly rejected. β^_command 04:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Page looks like a candidate for MFD. By what consensus is this the process to opt out of bot processing? Is this the only way to escape BCB? If so, You also lose the right to complain about the bots themselves or the issues they raise is unacceptable. Change all the other "rights" to "privileges", lose the "complain" and it's fine (maybe). As a statement of opinion, it's fine. As a required means to opt out of BCB, no way. Franamax (talk) 04:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Page deleted under WP:IAR and WP:CSD#T2. It's not exactly a template, but it does violate Wikipedia policy. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

it violates no policies, how is a voluntary topic ban a violation of policy? I have re-created it. and it shall stand that way. Arthur Rubin, you should know that T2 does not apply to userspace, especially when the page is not a template. β^_command 14:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, complain within reason. If you opt out you have no right to complain that you were not notified about something. But complaints about the bot acting up should still be valid, but do not expect a reply on your talk page, as you have basicly said, KEEP OUT. Dbiel ^(Talk) 04:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Dbiel, yes this is basically a BCBot topic ban. you dont get to both have your cake and eat it too. If you dont want bothered by BCbot, I dont want bothered by you. A lot of the people complaining just like to stir drama up and complain. this is my solution. Everyone involved gets what they want. β^_command 04:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

(e/c, to DBiel, n/c on Beta's response) Absolutely, if you ask bots to stay off your pages, don't get wanky when you miss something! And the bot should have a page to post so that real editors can act (like notifying you to take non-criteria images off your user pages before a real admin deletes it). However, if you (the real person) post to the talk page of the bot owner (the real person), you should still expect a reply to anything other than missing bot notices because you opted out. Saying bots-keep-out doesn't exclude you from any of the rest of Wikipedia, bots exist at our pleasure, not the other way around. Franamax (talk) 04:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply to above Just to clear the air, incase I am reading something wrong. First I have no interest in nobots or BCBot's opt out page, they are both unimportant to me. My interest is only in Beta's extreme interpretion of what signing up for, or making use of, either actually means. I fully agree with the point made by Franamax "don't get wanky when you miss something." That was actually the point I was trying to make. If you signed up not to be notified, then you simply have to deal with the fact that you are not going to be notified. You can not have it both ways. But to go to the extreme to say that if one signed up to avoid notifications you have NO right to post anything regarding the bot is just wrong. If a bot is not functioning properly then anyone has the right and responsiblity to point it out regardless of having signed up for an individual opt out list or nobots. And in reply to Beta's response that follows regarding the 2 or 7 day warning, that is simply a bad policy that needs to be discussed at the policy level not here, but to make my point anyway, just incase Beta is listening, The spirit of the policy is that any image uploaded after 3-05-2006 should be tagged with a 2 day warning relates to images that were or are just recently uploaded, not images that have been uploaded in some cases now over 2 years ago. Older images need more time to be dealt with then images that have just been uploaded. The policy, I believe, failed to take into account the fact that a bot might be tagging images at a rate of 700+per minute, thousands of images a day, another factor that would justify more time to handle the tagged images. Beta is right when he says he is acting within in policy limits, but I believe he is wrong not to consider impact and the power of his bot when making use of the time limits allowed by policy. Any finally as regards this topic of Wikipedia:Consensus, I agree with Beta and the others that state, 13 votes at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand do not make a consensus especially when the topic has also been addressed at higher levels. Dbiel ^(Talk) 19:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

and Im not required to do a lot of things that BCBot does. Im not required to place a notice on article talkpages. I should be tagging images uploaded after 03-05-2006 for deletion in two days instead of the seven that I tag it for. If you dont want BCBot notices I dont want to hear your constant harassment. this way you shut BCBot up and I shut you up. dont want to stop harassing me? dont opt out. the opt out is completely voluntarily. those users who want to opt out have a method for doing so. β^_command 05:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

(BC, if that post is directed at me, then I'm really disappointed. I've never been tagged by BCBot or any bot (other than SineBot once or twice grrr). I don't think my participation constitutes harassment, I'm genuinely trying to raise concerns that I have and that are reflected in parts of the community and I'm committed to being civil. I do have difficulty shutting up, for sure, but I have to follow my thoughts. I'm serially on record exhorting the bot group to address communication skills, it's not just you, I include myself in there. Cool down and stop ultimatum-izing, communication is not speaking loudly, it's more like listen-assimilate-understand-synthesize-respond to achieve everyone's goals, or at least their necessities. Relax. The wiki-world might be different tomorrow, but life will still go on.) Franamax (talk) 05:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

And technically this community isn't required to tolerate your bot operating on the 'pedia. Maybe that's something you ought to consider before so brazenly ignoring consensus and trying to bundle in your own demands. That's not how it works, nor will it ever. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Technically this community isn't required to tolerate you... or anyone else. That doesn't mean anything. Just like your "consensus" of 13 doesn't mean anything. And that's an empty threat considering calls to stop BCBot have failed more times than I recall this year alone. The work Betacommand and his bot do is invaluable to the project. If he stops doing it, backlogs will become unmanageable. Lara❤Love 05:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

No editor is so valuable to the project that they get blanket right to circumvent consensus building. No editor. Your comments are very short-sighted and fail to note the damage done long term by setting these kinds of precedents ("it's okay for an editor to ignore consensus, he does something fantastically valuable that nobody else can do"). —Locke Cole • t • c 05:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You fail to acknowledge that you have presented no consensus. Your proposal has been proposed before, and failed to gain consensus. Your 13 votes, as has already been pointed out multiple times by multiple editors and admins, is not a consensus. Lara❤Love 06:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Lara dear, that math don't jive. The !vote was/is open to anyone. Failure of a percentage of people to participate does not null the outcome. At the time it was archived, no one had opposed the proposal but several had supported it. That's a consensus. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 07:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm done talking about this. You have no enforceable consensus. Period. Lara❤Love 15:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I have added the excessively-broad terms of the opt-out notice to my RfARB submission: see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Another_problem_with_BCbot. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's the thing that scares me about this. I'm not saying that BCB may have some civil problems, and there's probably a few times he should not have used his bot the way he did, and there may be confusion on what tasks BCB is authorized to do - there's areas where these are to be taken up and discussed individually. What is chilling is that those pushing BCB to meeting the requirements of the consensus (whether or not it's there) is very much in violation of the nature and spirit of voluntarism on WP. There's only one group of people that has the community-granted authority to demand a certain behavior from one specific editor, and that's the Arbcom, and even then, their authority sets up things an editor should not do, and then authority granted to admins to implements specific remedies should those those be violated. Even 99.9% of the editing population agreed to the above consensus that BCB incorporate nobots, without any blessing from Arbcom, it is impossible to require BCB to do so.

If people want change, they should be trying to get community consensus on the bots policy to have any bot that may alter a user's page to have nobots functionality ; this does not single out BCB, and also would likely need to have bot editor support, but it's not a specific action that is meant to be sanctioned at one user. Alternatively, if you feel BCB's behavior is unwarrented, you can go to ArbCom or even ANI; if you feel he's doing an inappropriate task, then to BAG. But to bypass these (or route around them, as I see that there's not yet a likelihood of ArbCom taking up the BCB current case) and claim community consensus to require an action from one specific person is a very chilling precedent, should people expect it to be enforced. This is not to say that that community consensus cannot be used at BAG or Arbcom or elsewhere to suggest appropriate changes in policy based on the fact that a large number of people want this feature; just that without these previously-approved community routes to dispute resolution and the like, there's too much potential for this type of demand to be abused. --MASEM 15:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom is the only group that may require the bot to do something; a community ban could block the bot, even if it were "required" (which it no longer is). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs)

That's what I meant if it wasn't clear. A community consensus alone, targeting a definitive, finite set of editors (in this case, 1), cannot have any bearing on the expected actions of that editor (blocking is a warning, but it should not be a means in a dispute resolution if there's no clear indication of the bot failing to meet policy); only the ArbCom has that power. --MASEM 15:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus on this proposal. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 15:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your profound contribution, Tony. What number of supports to zero opposes would constitute "consensus" in your mind? 50? 150? 5000? Bellwether ^B_C 15:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Strange, I see at least twelve editors who disagree with you. There's no consensus that there's no consensus. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia consensus is not formed by voting. If there were consensus, then there would be no significant opposition. Twelve is an awfully small number of supports for giving an order to block a bot until a trivial protocol be built in especially in the absence of serious disruption. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 15:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right, discussion is how consensus is formed, but the poll gives a strictly by-the-numbers look at where peoples views stand. And as I recall, it only requires the "trivial protocol" be supported, not that he be banned (at least it hasn't come to that quite yet). —Locke Cole • t • c 16:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Regardless if there's proven consensus or not for this, expecting that BCB will have to abide by a proven consensus is very chilling and very much against the nature of Wikipedia. The only group that can do that is Arbcom. --MASEM 16:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not chilling at all: bots aren't people. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Consider also that none of Beta's supporters have bothered to participate, as it's pointless. Lara❤Love 16:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Ignorance is bliss, yes? —Locke Cole • t • c 19:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

There's no point in joining a discussion that doesn't have the ability to form a good enough consensus for what it proposes due to the limited viewing it gets. That coupled with people declaring consensus who have no ability to act on it should the decision be ignored. Leave this to the admins to decide if there's consensus for the proposal because you're not going to get anyone blocked by the small quantity of comments at the BC kangaroo court. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, calling it a kangaroo court is not a helpful comment. Carcharoth (talk) 23:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

and you think WP:AN/B is? It's just an excuse for his supporters and opposers to have an argument, nothing good has come of it, and nothing remotely near consensus on a community proposal could ever be formed, so users declaring it as such should stop. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice. I remember a time when admins weren't considered any more a deciding factor in a dispute than any normal editor. I guess those times are gone. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The people that have to enforce the proposal are the ones that decide if there's consensus for it - not someone who is completely involved in the dispute and who created the proposal. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

So in what way isn't that a consensus? That betacommand opted to ignore the discussion somehow invalidates it? That none of his supporters (who were actively posting elsewhere on the page for the entire duration of the discussion) chimed in or objected? Whose fault is it then when a discussion to try and get a needed feature implemented is totally and completely ignored? "If I just ignore it, it'll go away" seems to have been the order of the day for that week... —Locke Cole • t • c 00:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand hasn't ignored any community consensus on this - there simply wasn't one. WP:AN/B is a very low visibility page - there are not enough people watching it to declare a community consensus. I didn't comment because it was a waste of time - you need more eyes to declare a community decision. If you want to open this to more eyes, then open up a thread on WP:AN with your proposal and see if you can get consensus there - I can assure you that you won't. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the real discussion has been going on (for some time as well) at Wikipedia talk:BOT#nobots. That has been widely advertised and some clear points are emerging (if not anything like the same consensus as at WP:AN/B). Ryan, I'm puzzled as to why you suggested WP:AN as an appropriate venue for the discussion. Admins do not decide policy. The community decides policy, and admins are only a small part of that community (which they serve). Do read the WT:BOT discussion - some good points have been made there, and it seems there is an emerging consensus for something different to be done. Carcharoth (talk) 00:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

My point isn't about the WT:BOT proposal - Allstar has attempted to declare a community action on one bot user per a discussion on a poorly watched page. If they want a community consensus on this one bot user, they should go to WP:AN. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:AN is not the community. Carcharoth (talk) 01:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll find that that's where all community discussions for bans or sanctions go. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hang on, are we talking about this or this? This might be just a misunderstanding. I'm talking about the nobots proposal, you seem to be talking about some ban or sanctions proposal. Carcharoth (talk) 01:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. There is strong community support for Betacommand's essential work. A few dissenters (what was it? 12? 13?) are proposing to stop him doing this. They cannot do that without substantial support. Let them raise that support. Then they will be taken seriously. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 00:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you are confusing the block proposal (which was ridiculous, as you say) with the nobots proposal. Or am I missing something here? Carcharoth (talk) 01:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I read a nobots proposal that involved the blocking of the bot until the bot complied with nobot. I could well be missing another proposal that involves bot compliance with no block or block with no bot compliance. I would not find either surprising. There seem to be quite a number of absurdities on this page and I apologise to Betacommand for adding to them. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 01:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it looks likely the arbitration case will be accepted (actually it has been said that it will "open" pending further developments). Maybe we should all just defer there? Carcharoth (talk) 01:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Some arbitration may occur, and yet another Betacommand will take over the task. The task will continue. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 01:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course. See WP:NFCC-C. Carcharoth (talk) 02:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

You want to delegate a task currently performed by one determined, reliable person to a group of indeterminate, unknown persons of unknown reliability whom you haven't yet recruited. Best of luck. No, I think we will simply await the next person in possession of sufficient testosterone. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 02:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

See Serge Voronoff. My money is on Nora, la guenon devenue femme. Carcharoth (talk) 02:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

BCB edit data

Hi Beta, thanks for the edit history you supplied at ANI/B. Is there any easy way you could do a join between (I believe) the rev_page field and page.page_id to get the page_title and send that along? I'm not too fussed if you don't, I can always hit the API 187,000 times if I really have to have the article names (I do use &maxlag:) I was just wondering if you had a more lightweight way to do it (or a partial list from archives) on the toolserver. Thanks! Franamax (talk) 22:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

question, what do you need that data for? β^_command 22:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

To match up the bot activity with article titles. Obviously the article is encapsulated in the page_id you supplied, visually it could be more informative to see the article name as well. I have no idea whether it will add anything or not, just thinking it would be a pretty fast query to run with direct access to the DB rather than through API. Franamax (talk) 23:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd be willing to bet that page_id is the primary key from the mediawiki mw:Page_table. It's usually the easiest way to grab a specific page, on the toolserver. Should correlate with page_title if you have TS access, or a recent DB dump handy. It's often much easier to use the page_id, when dealing with titles that appear in a project such as this, with punctuation, odd encoding, etc... HTH. SQL^{Query me!} 06:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Example :)

SELECT page_title FROM page WHERE page_id = '43091';

SQL^{Query me!} 06:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a dead simple join from revision to page (if I'm seeing it right on the DB schema). I'm not on the toolserver and my apartment is not big enough to store a dump. I tried all_titles_in_ns0 but it is just plain titles. That's why I've asked Beta for help, it would probably execute easily on the TS. Looks like I may just have to go the API route at low throttle, things seem to be polarizing here (and elsewhere) and there's less and less talk of collaboration. So it goes... Franamax (talk) 07:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Ill do it, just give me a day or so. its a LOT of information to transfer. β^_command 14:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem, if you can't get around to it, I'd be happy to try to help later tonight. SQL's Alternate Account ^(talk) 00:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:BetacommandBot/Opt-out

User:BetacommandBot/Opt-out, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:BetacommandBot/Opt-out and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:BetacommandBot/Opt-out during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.— Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on User:BetacommandBot/Opt-out. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Edits in userspace are exempt from 3rr:

• reverts performed by a user within his or her own user page, user subpages, provided that such reverts do not restore copyright violations, libelous material, WP:BLP violations, or other kinds of inappropriate content enumerated in this policy or elsewhere;[3]

(WP:3RR#Exceptions) --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 18:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• It appears that inciting policy violations doesn't fall under one of the exceptions to the User-space exception to 3RR. It's still inappropriate content, but the 3RR notice was wrong. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Look, you do good work. I support you. You get a lock of flack from critics, I'll back you. But this [10] is either trolling or baiting. Please knock it off, before I have to get the trout out. ;) --Doc^g 23:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Page protection requested at User:BetacommandBot/Opt-out

I've requested page protection at User:BetacommandBot/Opt-out. Please stop edit warring there. I'm warning both you and Bellwether. Carcharoth (talk) 23:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Not vandalism

Can you please, please, please stop calling the edits of others vandalism (as you did here and here, for example) when their edits are not vandalism by any definition that I am aware of? You are free to revert and disagree, of course, but calling established editors vandals isn't going to help anyone. --Conti|✉ 00:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Changing my comments is not allowed, and violates policy, knowing changing the meaning of my comments is vandalism. β^{_{command 2}} 00:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

This makes no sense. What did you intend to type? Carcharoth (talk) 00:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

sorry about that, hope my re-word helps. /me stabs IE. β^{_{command 2}} 00:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean "knowingly", but yes, that helps, thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 01:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Even if it would have been your comment (And I wouldn't agree that any word in your userspace should be treated like a comment of yours), it still wouldn't have been vandalism. Please see Wikipedia:Vandalism. Or are you implying that those edits to the subpage of yours were made in bad faith and with the intention to harm Wikipedia? --Conti|✉ 01:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• It wasn't vandalism, and userpages are not owned. I made one simple edit, removing a very hotly disputed portion of the text until further discussion. Vandalism is something far different than that. Bellwether ^B_C 01:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Moving instead of deleting

Despite my prediction coming true, how about this proposal? The page and talk page are deleted, but then restored and moved to a different location to preserve the diffs and history of what happened there? Carcharoth (talk) 02:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It needs deleted. β^_command 03:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 15:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

This is going too far

I don't like this bot, which threatened to delete Image:Nancy-Université.gif (the concern has been addressed, by the way). Deleters are already zealous ; if they are seconded by bots nowadays, Wikipedia will become hell. Being threatened of deletion by bots is frightening ! Deletion should only be able to be suggested by human beings, in my opinion. And not without any prior discussion on the discussion page :-o ! Speedy deletion is shocking when the image has been sitting there for almost 2 years. Without permanent watch from the uploader, a useful pic will be speedily deleted, which is a nuisance ; prior discussion would let someone else fill in the missing rationale. Seven complaints in 2 days on this discussion page is the sign that something is wrong ! Baronnet (talk) 23:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

What you should do is: If the image gets deleted, go to the article in which it was used. Then go to the history of the article, okay? Next, go to the revision it was last in. When you see a red link to the deleted file, click on it. It will then mention that you are recreating a file that was previously deleted, and will include a log of when and by whom it was deleted. Then click on the link to the talk page of that administrator (only admins can delete images, so whoever does it is a surefire administrator!!!) and ask them to restore the image; granted that you give a detailed description of the image, and a link to its deleted page. When they restore the image, you can add in the fair use rationale, and then you can return it to its rightful article. It's easy!!! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 01:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Nil by Mouth (film)

Why has your bot tagged the infobox image for the above film for deletion when it already has a detailed rationale?? This aint on! Sue Wallace (talk) 01:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

there was a problem with the rationale, it was fixed here β^_command 01:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't a problem with the rationale. It was a valid link to a disambiguation page. Per WP:BOLD any reasonable editor would be able to see that it is a film poster and fix the link themselves instead of throwing warnings about Fair Use around. The undisambiguated link is a requirement for your script, not for the policy on Nonfree content. Note that the content guideline at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline recommends that "as an alternative to deletion, fix[...] the description page, if possible." --Dystopos (talk) 01:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Please re-read our non-free content policy. it states The name of each article a disambig page is not the article where the image is used. you need the exact article name (or a redirect). bots cannot fix rationales. Unless you have constructive comments please dont post useless comments. β^_command 01:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't a useless comment, User:Dystopos explained what the problem was, which is more than what your bot did, ie posting an incorrect problem with the rationale when the rationale was fine. Thank you. Sue Wallace (talk) 01:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't really word this in a polite manner, so excuse me for it: Didn't you read what Betacommand just said? Okay, now I'll continue with my input: The rationale was perfect, but the link was to the wrong page. A link must be left to each article in which an image is used, so that it may be understood better why it qualifies as fair use. But the comment wasn't useless, as neither of you seem to have known this rule prior to now. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 01:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well excuse me, but the only info I had to go on was the message left on the talk page which said Image:Nil by mouth poster.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. IT HAD A FAIR USE RATIONALE. THEREFORE THE MESSAGE WAS AMBIGUOUS AT BEST. THANK YOU. Sue Wallace (talk) 02:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Sue Wallace, please calm down the bot flagged the image as having an invalid rationale per WP:NFCC#10c which states that you must include the name of the page where you are claiming fair use. without the proper title of the article there is no way of knowing what article you are talking about when writing the rationale. that is why I pointed out how it was fixed. which is a problem with the rationale. the comments I made to Dystopos where not directed at you. I am glad to help you. β^_command 02:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I apologise, but when I added the rationale the title was correct, it's not my fault if someone changed the title afterwards. Anyway, no harm done. Thanks. Sue Wallace (talk) 02:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Size of comment block

I imagine this has been asked before, so this probably will qualify as asking again. Would it be possible to condense the amount of text the bot sticks into a talk page for each image? It currently looks to be on the order of 500 bytes of almost pure boiler plate, with only the name of the image changed.

Couldn't this be done as a template, and just stick the name of the image in as a parameter? It could even be done as in infobox-looking thing that went into the talk pages. Maybe something like {{betacommand-warning|imagename.jpg}} or the like would be sufficient.

I honestly can't see the benefit to the encyclopedia of having 30% of the entire database content consist of nothing but reams and reams of duplicated image warnings, when a 50-character transclusion should be more than sufficient in any case I can imagine. Yes, we aren't at 30% yet. But the bot is working hard at meeting that goal it seems.

I'm sure you will tell me to simply fix the images when I see them on my talk page. Sorry, I don't do images, and I see these warnings by the hundreds on the pages that I deal with around the encyclopedia. They are completely uninteresting to me; I would be perfectly happy if ALL images were deleted and prohibited, so that these warnings could then be stripped out of the text. Since that probably isn't going to happen, I'm just requesting that the size be reduced, and maybe they simply result in a category tag of ArticlesWithInvalidImages or the like. They are far more likely to be fixed if they show up in a category than simply salting tons of text all over the project. Loren.wilton (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Change in image template

Could you change the concern that BCB adds from "invalid rationale per WP:NFCC#10c The name of each article in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate fair-use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline." to "invalid rationale per WP:NFCC#10c because the following items are missing: The name of each article in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate fair-use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline." (addition in italics). This is so that it would make grammatical sense. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 14:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Barnstars

Why should a robot be rewarded for doing what it was programmed to do? IMO, the "well-oiled machine" and Legion of Bot awards can stay, but, I believe the other three, mostly the Tireless Contributor barnstars should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.151.142 (talk) 02:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Bad Bot.

Kept posting unsourced rumors of homosexuality.

Bad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.31.59 (talk) 00:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Technical discussion at WP:AN/B

Not sure if you have seen this yet: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand#BetacommandBot bug - misparsing backlinks. Would you be able to shed any light on this? Carcharoth (talk) 02:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI

I have added my name to User:AmiDaniel/VP/Approval. Dusti^{talk to me} 19:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal of category from User:Aldaron/BGG

What exactly does "rm per CfD" mean in this context? This template points to a category that exists, and is legitimate. Thought that category is flagged for deletion, I have disputed the deletion, which I believe results from a misunderstanding, and have, in any case, made changes to both the template and the category to remove any confusion about the legitimacy of the category. — Aldaron • T/C 23:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

see this β^_command 23:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm disputing that. So for now the category is around and I'm asking how "rm per CfD" applies. — Aldaron • T/C 23:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

that was closed as delete. Once it is empty it will be deleted. β^_command 23:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow. How do these changes get railroaded through? This is clearly a mistake: a legitimate category is about to be removed, just because a few people didn't understand what it was. — Aldaron • T/C 23:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

CfD's are binding just like AfD's. β^_command 23:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of how few people are involved in the decision-making or how uninformed it was? And now that the category has, in effect been changed (by deletion of the content that clearly caused the objection in the first place) it's not even really the same category anymore. So, technically (and semantically, if you want to go that way), the deletion decision is irrelevant. — Aldaron • T/C 23:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/bird articles by size

Weird. How does this work? Some Featured Articles such as Common Raven and Superb Fairy-wren are not showing up with their little star on this list...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 13th and 17th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 11	13 March 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
Accusations of financial impropriety receive more coverage	Best of WikiWorld: "Five-second rule"
News and notes: New bureaucrat, Wikimania bids narrowed, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Vintage image restoration	WikiProject Report: Professional wrestling
Tutorial: Summary of policies	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 12	17 March 2008	About the Signpost

Best of WikiWorld: "The Rutles"	News and notes: Single-user login, election commission, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Changes at peer review
WikiProject Report: Tropical cyclones	Tutorial: Editing Monobook, installing scripts
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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) 22:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

BCB edit count

Purely out of curiosity, what does the preferences screen say BCB's edit count is? I've heard it's pushing towards a million, but I can't get any accurate data (it times-out Kate's tool, for instance). Happy‑melon 20:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It's rather easy to get with a direct SQL Query :) 900979 [11] Smackbot's got it by about 120,000 edits... SQL^{Query me!} 20:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

900979 so says the all powerful API β^_command 21:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

and mine is at 67081. β^_command 21:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you a human being or a bot?

Seriously, I made one BetaCommandBot reversion, and 5 seconds later you warned me not to be a vandal. It's not even human to catch something like that so fast. And since you're a robot, then I can't possibly offend you by saying that I don't like your attitude.KnatLouie (talk) 22:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding [12], don't remove the tag, if you aren't going to fix the issue with the image, please. SQL^{Query me!} 22:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

its completely human. I get notified instantly (within a few seconds) of certain edits. I have tools that monitor recent changes and notify me if an edit matching certain criteria happens. when that happens my computer pings and provides me with the page name, edit summary, and diff link. If im interested I check the link. in the case that with the edit in question, you knowingly removed a valid template without addressing the issue in question. such template blanking is known as vandalism. I warned you accordingly. β^_command 22:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't know there were such tools available for tools to use. But to just let you know, I will have not uploading done on the site anymore. It's is an ended chapter. Sorry to have distrubed you.KnatLouie (talk) 22:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith again Betacommand, your bot's destructiveness and your hostile behavior are wholly innapropriate. Superslash (talk) 12:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, there's one out of left field. The bot is not destructive at all, it just places tags according to a set of rules. Humans follow the bot, they're the ones doing the destructing, which happens to be necessary at the moment. And there's nothing at all hostile in what Beta said above, it looks to me like a simple statement of reality. Franamax (talk) 12:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It really isn't, Betacommand has a history of "incivil behavior". Using his bot to vandalize pages and calling people dumbasses or worse is what I would call innapropriate hostile behavior and a destructive bot. Superslash (talk) 13:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

And that has what exactly to do with this particular interchange? Was there someting uncivil in this comment? Or were you perhaps looking for any excuse to complain about past issues? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Automatically harassing someone for being a vandal is pretty much the dictionary definition of assuming bad faith. Superslash (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Please check your facts and stop making personal attacks. Nothing I have done in regard to this incident has been uncivil, and I do not assume bad faith. Please review the Policy regarding AGF before making statements that counter policy. β^_command 18:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground comes to mind. Being on point is not incivility.--Hu12 (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Forum link on Dragon's_Gate

This is a link to a posting by the game's owner on an official forum, and so is a legitimate self published source. Please omit it from your future automated edits. - Ehheh (talk) 22:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

forums are not allowed as sources. β^_command 22:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're incorrect, see WP:SELFPUB. Materials from forums and other self published sources may be used in articles about the source itself. - Ehheh (talk) 22:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you verify that the screen name that makes those statments actually are part of the actual source? β^_command 22:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, see here. - Ehheh (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Category Removal

I fully accept categories may be deleted - if you want one off my userpage, tell me which and I'll do the honours. Do not move mine around for me.MRM (talk) 18:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Consider the inherent difficulty in notifying every user who has a certain category on their user page and the odds that every user would remove the category on their own. It it more efficient and effective to do so by bot. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 13:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

People using the nobots template inappropriately

Also mentioned at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2/Evidence: you've mentioned incidences of inappropriate use of the {{nobots}} template as your rationale for not using that template for your bot. I found at least one instance of this here; can you point to any other such uses? --bainer (talk) 11:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

thanks. I just got an idea, Image:UKofGBandNI COAs.png, Image:001 AWB illustrations for AWB manual.png,Image:002 AWB illustrations for AWB manual.png,Image:003 AWB illustrations for AWB manual.png,Image:004 AWB illustrations for AWB manual.png,Image:005 AWB illustrations for AWB manual.png,Image:006 AWB illustrations for AWB manual.png. β^_command 13:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:EDUCATION

I was wondering if your bot, per. Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BetacommandBot Task 8 could go through Category:Unassessed education articles and assess the articles for quality? Cheers. Twenty Years 09:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Opensource v. trusted source

I was reading the comments at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand_2/Workshop#Is_any_one_person_so_valuable_they_can.27t_be_blocked_or_sanctioned.3F and must say I agree with the idea that existing code shouldn't be forced public, which is why I've tried to advocate solutions where you (and other bot ops) decide who gets to see their code. I think a better argument instead of editing speed (which is more a function of bandwidth and processing power), would be that Bot code is owned by Bot ops, and that at the end of the day, we can't force them to give it up. We can set up forward looking rules, but not retrospective things. And I'm surprised at the Nobots tag abuse, that would also be an argument to avoid public release of code (as opposed to BAG private vetting).

Sadly the Archtransit case does show that Admin can't be trusted (and by virtue OTRS). And of course there is the issue of why show 1500 people your code, when only a couple dozen could actually understand it. If some of the BAG reforms go through (making BAG a mini-Arbcom, etc), it might be interesting to see if the BAG could operate a protected section of OTRS where users could archive their code. MBisanz ^talk 19:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Query as to tagging nonfree images without rationales

Hey, your bot often puts messages with the header "Disputed fair use rationale for Image:(image)" on talk pages. I'm trying to find the templates for tagging the image in question and for notifying the user, but I'm having problems finding them. If you could point me in the right direction, it would be a help. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• {{Di-disputed fair use rationale-notice}}
• {{dfu}}
• hope that helps. β^_command 00:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Non-free image stats

Would you have time to look at this? It might be totally wrong. If you could help with updating and gathering stats, that would be great. In particular, User:BetacommandBot/Non-Free Template Useage hasn't been updated since 12 March. Do you think you could start updating that again, even if only at more irregular intervals? Carcharoth (talk) 11:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Something must have broke, it should be updating every day around 0000 UTC. Ill look into the issue and try and fix it as soon as posible. β^{_{command 2}} 14:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Any chance of reconstructing the missing data. Not essential, but would be nice depending on how big the changes were in the interim. Carcharoth (talk) 15:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

there is no way of tracking the usage/removal of templates. the best that can be done is a snapshot of the usage at any single given point. β^{_{command 2}} 15:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I figured out the issue. I was doing some code cleanup and combined a bunch of functions into a central library and forgot to update that script. :P β^_command 22:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you notice that the album covers went up by a net total of 300 in that 13 day period? But more worryingly, a huge total of over 6000 non-free video covers (or to be precise, a net increase of over 6000) were uploaded. That looks suspicious. Want to investigate? Carcharoth (talk) 23:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I can answer the video covers. Per TfD, we merged the DVD, Blu-ray, VHS, and Video cassette non-free cats into one cat. So that is a likely answer. MBisanz ^talk 23:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, the edit conflict can stay in the page history. But it's nice to know I did track down what happened fairly quickly. Thanks, MBisanz! Carcharoth (talk) 23:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Lots_of_images_now_appearing_in_incorrect_size

Hi. Wondered if you could advise me if I'm barking up the wrong tree by asking for bot assistance with this. It looks a good candidate to my untrained eye, as it seems a widespread and serious problem in mainspace +, with what looks to me to be a simple solution (removal of a redundant "px") which wouldn't occur to most Wikipedians who spot the error. If tackled by a bot, I'd suggest some explanatory wording, particularly as it'll probably fix a lot of userspace problems. Maybe something short/simple along the lines of "Bot fixing image size problem. More information available here"? Anyway, I'd be grateful for your input. --Dweller (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 24th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 13	24 March 2008	About the Signpost

Single User Login enabled for administrators	Best of WikiWorld: "Clabbers"
News and notes: $3,000,000 grant, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Banner shells tame talk page clutter	WikiProject Report: Video games
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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) 06:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter

Hi. I've decided to ask you first. You know what I asked. For anything I need to do please tell me. I hope the bot can help. Chubbennaitor 14:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I need two things, one a list of users to send the letter to, and two a page with the news letter. β^_command 14:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long to reply. See the list of recipients here. The page of the newsletter is a hard one because where we make it is basically a sandbox. We store them in individual pages. The last one we gave out is here. The page changes by the date. It is monthly so the address changes by the date. The last one was a special and was listed as "200804-1". The "-1" stands for part 1. Normally it is YEARGIVENOUTMONTHGIVENOUT(-PART1,2,3ETC.). Hope that makes sense. Chubbennaitor 16:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

And another thing; It is so far ready for hand out on the 5th of every month. could you reply on my talk page. I may not reply immeditely. Chubbennaitor 16:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Great! Hope you are here on April 5th or about that time. Chubbennaitor 16:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

There is also another page where all the recipients are listed. here. Chubbennaitor 16:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

A couple of things

First, you should probably point out on both your userpage and your bot page that neither you nor the bot are deleting images as a joyride, that you are simply acting upon the will of policy and the WP:NFCC, and therefore you cannot be held liable for it. I think the silly issues that have popped up on the administrators' noticeboard may be a result of that misunderstanding. Plus people don't bother to read legalese these days anyway. Frankly I'm sick of looking at your talk pages and seeing people complain about how you're Devilspawn.

Second, could you send me links to some of your most hilarious experiences of people personally attacking you because of your bot? I imagine that after over a year you must have received some pretty ridiculous comments. :)

Keep up the good work.--WaltCip (talk) 02:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

just skim the archives there are at least a half dozen per archive. β^_command 03:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians in Apple Valley, Minnesota

Your bot did some weird stuff at Category:Wikipedians in Apple Valley, Minnesota. It seems to have moved the content of Category:Wikipedians with approved alternate accounts instead of the content from Category:Wikipedians in Apple Valley, MN. I've gone ahead and fixed it up. --- RockMFR 17:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Not Here to Complain

I got a message at an album site that I prepared on I Am What I Am (Milan album) that this active little bot got to, but the reference was to the image for the George Jones album, I Am What I Am. Guess it gots its wires crossed. :-) Shocking Blue (talk) 15:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

could you be a little more specific what image did the bot notify you about that you did not upload? β^_command 16:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletionism

Is this the "school" of Wikipedia you subscribe to? Or do you genuinely fear retribution from companies for having "fair use" images of copyrighted works in articles? Or do you just like deleting stuff with your neat little bot? Please don't take offense... I've never had any of my uploads deleted by anyone, and I'm not upset with you; nor am I complaining about any specific instances. But I have noticed your pattern of deletions... Some are legitimate deletions, while others are what I'd call "what the heck, why not?" deletions. What exactly is your rationale for deleting images? Is it just if the uploader didn't describe his reasons fully or properly? An encyclopedia devoid of images is hardly an encyclopedia, and it's certainly not engaging for general audiences.

I myself edit articles that are clear-cut and factual; no opinion or speculation. No reason to delete images, because I create most of them myself. (Take a gander, perhaps there's something in my galleries that you'll want to delete.) When I upload something, I do it properly - I provide free licensing, or public domain reasons.

Don't you think that you could at least give the uploader the benefit of the doubt, and try to help them provide a rationale for uploading the image, instead of tagging everything for deletion? Would you agree that mass deletions are extremely counterproductive, especially for an encyclopedia?

Cheers, Fuzzform (talk) 02:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a heads up, I dont delete anything. I have a bot that that identifies and tags images without valid non-free content rationales. Due to the nature and requirements of a non-free rationale a bot cannot write them. the notices that the bot leaves point to several places where new users can get information or help with our non-free content policy. Also my talkpage is always open to those who have questions. As for my policy regarding deletionism/inclusionism each thing has a place. wikipedia is not always that place, and thus it should not be on wikipedia. There are fan wikias and other places for the content. And some things should be on wikipedia. Ace's in their places BetacommandBot (talk) 03:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Notifications to departed editors

See for example User talk:Duncharris, where a contributor has moved along. Dunc's last contribution was in 2006, yet we seem to be expecting him to read the notice and act on it to save the images. There's got to be a better way: If the bot were to check Special:Contributions/Duncharris for recent contributions and find none, could it not somehow tag the image as an orphan needing adoption? LeadSongDog (talk) 04:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Checking the contribs doesnt do much. the Bot leaves several notices, (Image, Article talk, user talk), and even if the user is not active that does not mean that someone is not watching the talkpage. β^{_{command 2}} 14:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there a taskforce or some such doing this?LeadSongDog (talk) 20:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Pinging per your request re: Bot Tagging for Museums Wiki project

Hi Beta! We ran through the list you had BCBot make and discussed it at WP:MUSEUMS. You're right, it was amazing what stuff was categorized as museums. The edited list is at User:Travellingcari/Museums_Cats since I didn't want to overwrite the original. Whenever you/Bot have time, it's ready for the cats to be tagged with {{WikiProject Museums}}. Of course there's no rush. I also saw on an article that BCBot does/did handle the stub tagging of some projects based on previous proojects having classed the article as 'Stub'. If the Bot still does that can I get in the queue for that sometime in the future as I obviously don't want to tie up the bot now since I'm sure you have other projects. Thanks so much for your help with this process, ping me if you have any questions TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

do you want any parameters on that template? β^_command 05:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

by parameters you mean? class= Sorry I'm still pretty new to projects so I don't know the ins and outs. The way the template Template:WikiProject Museums is set up, I *think* it has them attached but I'm not really sure. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 05:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

{{WikiProject Museums|class=|importance=}} is the default I assume? β^_command 05:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, at least as far as I understood it when User:SQLBot did some tagging for me, which you can see here if that makes more sense then my explanation. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 05:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

ETA: I'm going offline now (05:44 Wiki Time) but will be back in the morning to answer any other questions I can. Thanks again for your help TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 05:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I oopsed and deleted my sandbox where I had the list, luckily I moved it first. It's now at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Museums/Categories. Same list, same formatting. Thanks again! TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I already have it, and will start tagging within a few hours. β^_command 22:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Been offline, thanks so much! Enjoy the rest of the weekend TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 19:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Thank you so much for all your help with the tagging for the Museums project. Your bot handled far more than we mere mortals can do to get all the appropriate articles tagged. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 19:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Errors

Whoa! Why have Mario Lanza, Bobby Darin, Chuck Berry, and Winona Ryder been tagged with WikiProject Museums? Ward3001 (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

And Ella Fitzgerald, Pat Boone, Doris Day, Hugo Winterhalter and Manhattan (film)? Paul20070 (talk) 19:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see my comment here. When we ran the category list, we didn't catch that the walk of fame was on there. I'm coming to help de-tag these as they're not with in the scope. Sorry for that! TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 19:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Just de-tagged a few before seeing this comment. I think there's a few more needing attention though. Cheers Paul20070 (talk) 20:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep I've edit conflicted with you a couple of times. I'm going as fast as my geriatric laptop will allow to help fix this mini-mess that my oversight caused. I started as soon as I became aware and will keep on the clean-up TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 20:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

We're working on a master list to fix this, again my apologies. I'll update here when it's done but please feel free to add to it. Sorry, Beta! TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 20:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Reverted en dashes

I reverted your changes to the "en dashes" in the article Hugh IV of Cyprus. The dashes used were correct - see En dashes. In the article the dashes were used to "To convey the sense of to or through, particularly in ranges (pp. 211–19, 64–75%, the 1939–45 war, May–November).Stellar (talk) 09:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not change anything. I just converted the raw HTML markup to the actual Unicode characters. β^_command 13:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

also you removed the Reference section that I added. β^_command 13:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

BCBot

What is the name of your Bot. It is now put as a piece of news in the newsletter but I don't know the link. Chubbennaitor 14:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry. Chubbennaitor 14:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

For tomorrow's edits...

I will love you forever if you change your bot message(s) to read what the fifth quote suggests. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Error in some recent edits related to WP:CFD/WU

Hi Betacommand,

A number of edits to some userboxes I created (okay, adapted) just popped up on my watchlist. It seems that your bot just enacted the changes noted in this version of the working list for Categories for Discussion. That's fine; I have no issue with the change.

However, there were some errors in the way it was handled, demonstrated by This edit to {{User wikiitsmall}}. By deleting the content between the <includeonly></includeonly> tags and leaving the categorization between <noinclude></noinclude>, the changes resulted in the template being classified under the new category without also classifying the users who have transcluded the template.

A quick look at {{User wikiit}}, the parent template of the userbox, revealed the same problem. So if possible, would you mind going back and fixing it so that the proper category is included through transclusion? Otherwise, we're going to have a lot of empty categories....

Thanks! --jonny-mt 07:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I really hate poor userbox design. there was no problem with what the bot did, it just highlighted a problem with the design, that page was being categorized into the same category twice. that should not happen. Ive fixed the design flaw here I would suggest that you go back and check any userboxes that you created for the same flaw. β^_command 13:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

To borrow the old programming adage, it's not a bug--it's a feature. The use of <includeonly></includeonly> and <noinclude></noinclude> tags ensured that each of the templates were only categorized once, with their names sorted under "*" to separate them from the users they were categorizing, who in turn were sorted under {{PAGENAME}}. This is a common feature across all such templates and was present even before I created the smaller userboxes.

While I don't know the inner working of your bot and will always defer to you on matters of programming, it seems to me that it would be relatively simple to do a search-and-replace for [[Category:Category to be changed --> [[Category:Category to change to in the future. In this case, I'd greatly appreciate it if you would restore the lost functionality by putting [[Category:New category|*]] back between the <noinclude></noinclude> tags. If you can't or you're too busy, then please let me know and I'll see what I can do with AWB. Thanks! --jonny-mt 05:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Task number?

Hi Beta, I noticed your interesting subpage listing active admins [13]. Could you point me to the task description for this bot? Thanks AKAF (talk) 15:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

there is no offical approval for keeping those stats. I just kinda applied WP:IAR β^{_{command 2}} 16:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

And I wish you would do more stats! See below. Carcharoth (talk) 12:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: VandalProof

Hello Betacommand! Could you please review [14] these applications? --Kanonkas :  Take Contact  13:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 7th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 15	7 April 2008	About the Signpost

April Fools' pranks result in temporary blocks for six admins	WikiWorld: "Apples and oranges"
News and notes: 100 x 5,000, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Reviewers achieving excellence	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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) 15:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Bot reports

Could you get your bot to update this report please? Thanks.--Otterathome (talk) 16:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.--Otterathome (talk) 18:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:User wikisk

Hi. The bot made some changes at Template:User wikisk and something got broken. The user pages with this template turned completely messed. Could you repait it, please?

I have reverted the changes. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 11:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I just don't understand this robot

So the picture to illustrate Between the Lines, an LGBT paper, is being targeted becaused supposedly its fair use rationale is not good enough. I don't see this robot targeting articles about mainstream newspapers which also use a picture of a typical front page in them. I think this robot is prejudiced against gays. Donnabella (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Every image i have ever uploaded has been deleted by this robot because of errors in the fair use rationale. Don't take it personally - this robot is EVIL INCARNATE!!! But is useful for maintaining copyright in cases that need it. Have a read through the policy and try again. All the best Meow meow - purr purr (talk) 22:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

What I'd like to know is why it's leaving messages in my talk page telling me it's deleting images that I didn't post. :) I've not been logged on in months until today, and frankly, have never posted an image on WP. Something's not working with this bot, it would seem, because nobody's been on my account. Kel - Ex-web.god (talk) 15:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Museums tags

This bot is currently tagging articles with a {{WikiProject Museums}} template. However, I'm not sure that Mario Lanza, Bobby Darin, and Chuck Berry fall into this category. I think something's going wrong somewhere. Paul20070 (talk) 18:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

And Winona Ryder. Ward3001 (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

And Manhattan (film). -- Quiddity (talk) 18:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Add to that Ella Fitzgerald, Pat Boone, Doris Day and Hugo Winterhalter. Paul20070 (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

And Paul Reubens. Murderbike (talk) 19:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

And Trafalgar Square (yes, the National Gallery is on one side of the square, but the square itself is not a museum). — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 19:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Teatro Colón is a theatre not a museum, also, I reckon that newly added banners should be nested if other banners on the talk page are already nested. English peasant 19:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

And St. Mary's Episcopal Church (Newton Lower Falls, Massachusetts). It's not a museum. It's still an active church. No museum category has ever been added to it. clariosophic (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

all of those pages are listed in categoris on Wikipedia:WikiProject Museums/Categories. Please address issues in regard to tagging to them. β^{_{command 2}} 19:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Museums#Wikipedia:WikiProject Museums/Categories. Thanks :) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity Newsletter

Thanks for delivering the Newsletter for Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity . We will approach you every time we need to circulate the new issue. Do you have a special page for your own bot requests ? - Tinucherian (talk) 05:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOVELS newsletter

It seems not all the members got it, see User_talk:Yllosubmarine. You want to look into the matter? It would be nice if You could sort out the problem, so WP:NOVELS doesn't have to change to another bot next month to deliver a newsletter. Hoping for the best, feydey (talk) 19:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It's being delivered now. I think what happened is that only the names specifically mentioned at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Outreach#Delivery options were sent the mail, which doesn't include the rest of the members. John Carter (talk) 19:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)