User talk:Betacommand

−6126 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.

• 20060127
• 20060409
• 20060508
• 20060713
• 20060906
• 20061017
• 20061117
• 20061207
• 20070101
• 20070201
• 20070301
• 20070401
• 20070501
• 20070601
• 20070701
• 20070801
• 20070901
• 20071101
• 20071201
• 20080101
• 20080201
• 20080301
• 20080401
• 20080501
• 20080601
• 20080701
• 20080801
• 20080901
• 20081001
• 20081101
• 20081201
• 20090101
• 20090201
• 20090301
• 20090401
• 20090701
• 20090801
• 20090901
• 20091001
• 20091101
• 20091201
• 20100101
• 20100201
• 20100301
• 20100401
• 20100501
• 20100601
• 20100701

I Don't Understand

My image that i uploaded, [[1]]], is apparently not in compliance with the policy for non-free content or whatever, and i dont understand the policy all that well. i dont know what a rationale is or anything. i'm only a teenager who made a page for an album that wasnt yet posted on Wikipedia. i would like to be told what is wrong with my image in terms that i can understand. please lemme know!

I Don't Understand either

Why is that you had not giving me a chance to fix the solution with my images, i put a lot of work in to the article, i would have been more then happy to bring up a solution then you deleting my images, why didn't you try and help rather then just deleting images. holy crap the person up top just took the words straight out of my mouth, i'm a teenager too who made a album well "mixtape" page for lil' kim's Ms. G.O.A.T. i would also like to be told what is wrong with my image's in terms that i can understand. please actually help me out this time!

		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

image fair use rationale- economic development in india

hi, i took the liberty of removing the indian oil logo image (you tagged) from the article. hope so you will not mind but i have removed the notice you put up on the talk page. thanks a lot for your tolerance. Sushant gupta (talk) 09:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Technology

Hey, how does the bot reason whether or not a fair use description is valid or not? or does a human review it, before deleting it? JonOmite (talk) 20:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For going through the stub types today and fixing almost three thousand links (and counting), I award you the Working Man's Barnstar. Great job.   jj137 ♠ 01:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I just received one of your bot notices regarding

this. thumb|88px|left The copyright owners sent me the picture, in fact a bunch of pictures, and gave me free reign to do as I willed with them. I chose to share them on wikipedia. However I no longer get into protracted back-and-fourths about this sort of thing, so if you really don't like the way it's written up, 1) live with it, 2) remove the image, 3) write it up properly or 4) do something else. I've run into your work a lot, I trust you and have no problems with whatever route you choose. Carptrash (talk) 04:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Please add a Non-free ratioanle β^_command 04:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

And now it is this one

Image:BirthOfPsycheEJ.jpg. I am Einar Kvaran and Carptrash (talk) 05:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC) and I took the picture, etc. It was placed on wikipedia before the current set of templates were available, or at least known to me. You will find several 100 (give or take) other pictures by me - mostly in sculpture articles. I did the best that I could then, you do your best now.

happy Mango season

'TIS MANGO SEASON....
Have a shlice of mango cheek...well, I am up to my armpits in the things. Yuletide means lots and lots of mangos, as well as turkey and ham and ice-cream and pressies. Were on special so I bought 3 crates for AU$20 and now I have both crispers in the refrigerator full and even with everyone eating two of the ##$@& things every mealtime... I am a bit mangoed out so I thought I'd spread the goodwill around....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Betacommandbot

It concerns me that Betacommandbot frequently sends warnings over fair-use images that do specify a rationale. It is not required that a rationale be written in any templated form for easy bot recognition. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• It concerns me as well. I removed a warning from a book cover image that has been part of the encylopedia for two and a half years, without issue. It clearly qualifies as fair-use, and links only to that book's page (Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret). Something needs to be done quickly to remedy such obvious errors. Bellwether ^B_C 08:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Morven since you did not give me an example of what your talking about I cannot use one of them as an example of what is wrong with your rationale. As for Bellwether, I think you are referring to Image:AreYouThereGod.jpg which does not have a non-free rationale. a guide on how to properly write rationales can be found here. β^_command 13:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Do you fully understand that it is not required of editors of the project to make the bot's job easier? Noting that it is a book cover, and that it is used only once (on the book's article) fully satisfies the requirement that the rationale outline how the useage for the project will not harm the copyright holder. Bellwether ^B_C 17:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

that is incorrect please see our non-free policy and a guide on writing rationales β^_command 17:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• No, you're simply wrong. The image in question is used only once, and the non-free template that has been on that page for the two years it has been on the project outlines how the image complies. I have also added a note to the image. Please stop trying to remove book covers that have been a part of the project for a long period of time. Bellwether ^B_C 17:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

BCBot is charged with making sure all images on WP comply with the Foundation's requirement on non-free media use before March 23, 2008. This requires that a rationale with the exact name of the article(s) the image is being used on is present on the article page (WP:NFCC#10c). Image:AreYouThereGod.jpg's rationale is valid save for this point (it is off by a question mark). While a human may be able to judge that what's written is the same as the page name, it is necessary after March 23, 2008 that this be understood by a computer program such that WP can maintain this. It doesn't have to be templated, it just has to be that article name exactly. --MASEM 17:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• So, because of a missing question mark, an image that has been playing a useful part of the project for two and a half years could be deleted? Seems a bit lawyerly, especially given Bc's pointing at policy pages when asked to explain, rather than taking the time to clearly articulate (as you have) the extremely minor problem with the rationale. And for the record, I can not figure out a way to edit the file history to add the question mark. Bellwether ^B_C 17:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I must also lodge a complaint. Your bot is running rouge. It complained about Image:Dontokosuojisan-logo-japan.jpg which has been up for a long time, doesn't have a fair use equivalent and is used in the article to showcase this product's logo (like many other pages) and is listed with fair use rationale. Why did the bot go after it? Calm down its hunger a bit, k? ;) cheers. Nesnad (talk) 13:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The bot was correct, the version that it saw did not have a rationale. after it was tagged User:Nihonjoe added a rationale and removed the deletion tag. β^_command 13:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Ally1884.png

I think Image:Ally1884.png is in the public domain, I've tagged it on that belief and given my reasons. If I've got it wrong, let me know and I'll add the fair use rationale. Ta, Hiding T 14:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)