User talk:Betacommand

−6023 days left

If you are here to register a complaint regarding my edits, before doing so please note: There is a very clear policy regarding the use of non-free images. This policy is located at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria 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. Read the policy Check and make sure the image has a valid source Make sure that the image has a valid Fair use Rationale (A guide can be found here) I will not add rationales for you. As the uploader it is your responsibility, NOT mine. I do not want to see images deleted All images must comply with policy A generic template tag is NOT a valid fair use rationale. If you're here to whine and complain that But <place image name here> is just like my image and isn't tagged for deletion I will tag that image too, I just haven't gotten around to it yet.

		The Original Barnstar
		Because of your repeated kindness and willingness to help others when nobody else will even know about it, I sincerely thank you. You've helped me build an army of... well, I'll just leave it there. :-D east.718 at 01:16, December 16, 2007

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.

Hi Betacommand: Just making sure you're aware that there's another thread on you over at ANI. I have no opinion on the content thereof, just notifying you. - Philippe | Talk 23:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello... Your responses and comments here from a couple of days ago, and here and here were uncivil, failed to assume good faith (explicitly), and were personal attacks.

You have in the past been warned not to be so abrasive and hostile in responding and defending your bot actions, and you've agreed that you tend to go too far at times. This has been one of those time, again.

This needs to stop. You are needlessly aggrivating the bad feelings raised by the bot activities by your hostile counterattacks on critics. Even if the bot actions are 100% correct, you are under an obligation to maintain civil and polite responses to critics.

Please calm down and tone it down. If you're angry at a particular point, don't respond to critics until that passes.

If you keep abusing people, in violation of policy and these warnings, then someone's going to eventually take you up to Arbcom or block you for the abuses. That doesn't serve the project well or do you any good.

Please take the step back and avoid further abuse. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what about the abuse that is directed at me? Ive sat around and observed that when users communicate with me they ignore NPA, CIVIL, AGF, and countless other policies and dont get as much as a warning for it. but when I take the slightest mis-step I get the book thrown at me. unless you are willing to enforce the policy both ways I dont want to hear it. Ive been on the recieving end of countless personal attacks, un-civil comments and other attacks for over eight months, I think I have handled myself fairly well. β^_command 00:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what we expect of administrators in particular, bot operators in particular, and editors in general, yes.

No, you have not handled yourself well. You've previously admitted that you didn't think you were handling yourself well at all, in fact. If you were handling yourself well, I would not be here on your talk page pointing out edits of yours which are rather blatantly in violation of policy. There's no "But he made me do it!" exception to AGF, CIVIL, or NPA. They're policy. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

then why are so many people able to breach those policies when talking to me without getting so much as a warning? β^_command 00:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow you around trying to spot every time someone posts something abusive about you. If you have specific example diffs you would like reviewed, post them here or on the ANI thread (I am about to step away from the computer, but will take a look at any specifics you can point to). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bleveret/Userbox/BCBruin‎ is a quick one, I can get more if you want them. β^_command 00:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's .. not entirely polite, maybe, but isn't an obvious evident violation of AGF, NPA, or CIVIL. You could make a case to MFD it but I don't see it as the sort of thing an administrator needs to act on immediately. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That one was nominated for MFD here. Enigma ^msg! 02:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

let me start listing some more.

• User talk:Betacommand/20080201#Dude
• User talk:Betacommand/20080201#Moved warning
• User talk:Betacommand/20080201#Point 15 is total rubbish
• User talk:Betacommand/20080101#I hate your bot

β^_command 02:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having admiteddly looked only as far as "I hate your bot, it's so annoying" I'm failing to see incivility or personal attack there... Can you be more specific?
152.91.9.144 (talk) 03:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been uploading pics at an alarming rate claiming self-made on most of them. They clearly aren't his. TO make things worse he has been ading these same sorts of images over at Commons. All stolen. 156.34.216.55 (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but that's not the point. I am going to remove the protection if you agree to stop edit-warring on that article. I have left the same message for MickMacNee. The alternative is blocking you both. Black Kite 21:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask that it is removed until there is consensus on the talk page for it to be re-added? I dont like getting into disputes but his trolling needs to stop. β^_command 22:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your accusations need to stop. MickMacNee (talk) 22:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back off, MickMacNee. Lara❤Love 06:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lara, both sides need to calm down. Jumping in on one side will not help. Carcharoth (talk) 15:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are still wrongly tagging images as not having a valid fair-use rationale, despite being in Category:Images with permission confirmed. Please fix your bot so it stops spamming my talk page. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 11:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said before, if those permissions are released they should not be tagged as non-free. its not the bots fault, but rather an issue with how its tagged. β^_command 12:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Betacommand. I've asked this question on the Administrator's Noticeboard, but I'll repeat myself here to make sure you see it on that long page :-) Do you do you have a number for the amount of images that still don't have a rationale? Do you plan to tag another large amount of images? Thanks, Bláthnaid 13:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

like I have said I dont know exact numbers, but a majority should have been tagged. β^_command 18:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It's good to know that most of the old images have been dealt with. Will there be any more relatively small rounds of tagging of old images, like today's 700 tagged images? Bláthnaid 19:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I see that you have answered essentially the same question below. Bláthnaid 13:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Could you kindly outline your conditons for releasing the source code to BetacommandBot? Assume for the sake of discussion that said release is to someone you trust. Thanks in advance. Nandesuka (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I have said that I would release my code to trusted persons under the conditions that they dont release the code, that they dont modify it, and dont use it if Im available. I dont trust OTRS for that kind of thing so I do it on a personal level. βcommand 14:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)" As found here. Lara❤Love 18:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Betacommand, have you had a chance to look at this yet? They still all need changing back. I really don't understand why you made those changes. If you are too busy I can put it up on the Village pump or something to see if someone else can fix it. • Anakin ^(talk) 19:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

that was done for a reason, to allow users to filter out the junk links created by the templates that flood the linksearch. β^_command 19:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see. Okay that makes sense now. The /w/index.php part still messes up the links on the secure server though, possibly other mirrors. If the "stub" variable is necessary in the URL it should be done as {{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAMEE}}|stub&action=edit}}. Would that work, and still let people filter out the junk links? • Anakin ^(talk) 19:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BetaCommand;

Would it be possible for you to rename Image:History1.jpg? The name is highly ambiguous. It should be called Vernon_Court.jpg or anything similar to that. Thanks! Charles 19:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Betacommand's had nothing to do with this image. Is there some reason you can't rename it? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BetaCommand was listed as having image rename permission. I don't think images can be simple renamed, at least I haven't seen any rename or move tab along the top or side. Charles 19:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

The bot is consistantly fallging my images, which are correctly labled.

Image:Lovethecup1.JPG

Image:Therepulsionbox.JPG

Image:This_Gift_albulm_cover.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr dozzy (talk • contribs) 21:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of those images were tagged by betabot. One was tagged manually but that was fixed. Are you sure you have the right images? Woody (talk) 21:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One was tagged by BCBot, but they've all been corrected at this point. So it's moot. Lara❤Love 22:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, some of my images have been tagged, i added them a while back and i dont think they are under the right rationale so i think they should both be speedy deleted to make sure, can always find new pictures, can you let me know what to do to get rid of them?? Thanks.

(Neostinker (talk) 21:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Quick glance says their images of living people used to illustrate them. Fairuse images can't be of living people since they can be replaced by a free image. So drop {{db-badfairuse}} on the image page and someone will be along to delete it. MBisanz ^talk 21:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are the set of images tagged last night part of the older compliance set or the continuing compliance set? MBisanz ^talk 21:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked the first 100,000 images in alphabetical order. thats about 1/3 of all images. (we have about 291,000 non-free images). in a little over four hours im planning to check some more. I dont sort them by upload date. β^_command 21:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So after that next run, all non-free images uploaded before today will have been scanned at least once? MBisanz ^talk 22:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this is the third(?) time I have run through all the images since the start of 2008. during the large runs BCBot may miss some. but the next runs should be smaller. somewhere around a thousand images. this last run got 700(?) which is a lot less than the prior runs for this year. β^_command 23:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is making things a lot clearer. Thanks, Betacommand. Any progress on those stats, yet, or can I try and do something with the data in those subpages in your bot's userspace? I mean these pages. I know the data only goes back to September, but I still think some graphs might be useful. Carcharoth (talk) 00:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it is a good thing that I won't get another 3900 logo dump! I can easily handle the 100 or so logos that will drop out of the 700 tags. MBisanz ^talk 01:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

* 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!