Jump to content

User talk:Betacommand

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Blueshirts (talk | contribs) at 22:23, 17 May 2007 (→Various logos). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 3 days are automatically archived to User talk:Betacommand/20070601. Sections without timestamps are not archived


betacommandbot adding {{lake project}}

I fixed a series of banners placed on unrelated articles, e.g. Talk:Mount_Tallac. It looks like it's mainly articles in categories such as Category:Lake Tahoe. -- User:Docu

daniel dicriscio

you mentioned self links . Which links are you referring for deletion. Thank you.

You know what to do

http://tools.wikimedia.de/~gmaxwell/nufu.txt

Decline?

I recently applied for Vandalproof and was declined. Not that there is anything wrong with this, but what was the reason? I seem to meet all the requirements. --Catz [T • C] 20:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? Am I going to get an answer? I seem to meet all of the requirements, I have been actively editing for more than a month, I have more than 250 mainspace edits, I have never been in an edit war or content dispute, and I don't have a history of vandalism. Please, respond to this. Thank you. --Catz [T • C] 19:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VP decline

Hey I was wondering if there was any specific reason/s for my VP application to be declined? Nothing person,just want to know how to improve to I will be more comfortable reapplying. Jerm 00:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

eh? Jerm 23:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello betacommand! Enjoy wikipedia! Your --83.191.160.95 16:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for May 14th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 20 14 May 2007 About the Signpost
Administrator status restored to five accounts after emergency desysopping User committed identities provide protection against account hijacking
Academic journals multiply their analyses of Wikipedia WikiWorld comic: "Ubbi dubbi"
Features and admins The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

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 08:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN/I

Just a heads up that your image tagging has been brought up at AN/I. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot problem

Please don't tag images with {{PolandGov}} as no source, the source is given in the template. The bot should either be adjusted to recognize those templates or disabled until such time it learns not to tag good sourced images.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that template doesnt cover the lack of FU rational that I also tagged the image with. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 18:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? This is not a fair use image, this is a free image - released under a free license by the copyright holder (Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
please read the template, its not a public domain image, its a limited release of the rights of the image.

They may not be used by Polish and foreign natural and legal persons for obtainment of financial gain.

that means Fair use. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 18:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC) PS that is not a free release. as not everyone can use the image. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 19:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur with Betacommand. That template does not mean the image is available under a free license. We have two broad categories of images at Wikipedia; free license and non-free. If it's non-free, it must have a fair use rationale. There's no middle ground. --Durin 19:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{PolandGov}} has been deleted anyways. It's an inappropriate license tag. --Durin 19:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, it was an old permission/NC license, as such indeed obsolete. I will see about getting in touch with Ministry to convince them to drop NC stuff, so hopefully in a few weeks we will get a free license for their collection; as the talk correspondence show they want their images to be used on Wiki so it's just a matter of goint through bureaucracy. Since it is likely we will get such permission, deleting and undeleting images seems counterproductive, I suggest creating a fairuse in / permission / built-in rationale for historical photos with MoFA copyright / etc. template for now, that we will be able to convert into free licence once all the details are worked out with ministry. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture Removal

Excuse me, why are you removing my pictures from their pages. They are the only ones available for the bands and there is no reason to delete them, as I own them. Cnota 19:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

can you please be more specific? Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 19:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because you've got the wrong licensing on the images so they are about to be deleted. (this might clear things up Beta). Ryan Postlethwaite 19:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VandalProof

No offence, but I'm relisting myself at User:AmiDaniel/VP/Approval. You didn't leave any rationale for your decision - so it seems rather arbitrary. I meet the stated criteria and I hope this tool will help automate some of the vandal smiting processes that currently quite a lot of my time. I'm coming in via a painfully slow connection from the developing world. Cheers. Paxse 19:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please come back in ~3 weeks, I see that most of your contributions are within the last 30 days. we dont like approving relatively new users Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 19:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Polska Flaga Berlin.jpg

Hi, I think your bot went astray, deleting the Image:Polska Flaga Berlin.jpg image, which it believes has no fair use. Can you have a closer look at its actions please. --Lysytalk 19:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That image is a non-free image. Works from the Polish government are not "free" images. No inspection is necessary. --Iamunknown 19:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is fair use. Read the explanation provided in the template. --Lysytalk 19:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, all non-free images must have a detailed Wikipedia:Fair use rationale for each use, which this image does not. Secondly, the source (i.e. the URL) is not given ... those are the exact reasons for which Betacommand tagged the image; I don't understand the tags were or are incorrect. --Iamunknown 20:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But in this case both were in the template that the bot deleted. Also, I did not claim it was a "free" image. --Lysytalk 20:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A fair use rationale, separate from the text included in the image copyright tag, is required for each use of the image; see Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline for the details. I misunderstood your original statement, I see now that you did not claim it was a "free" image. --Iamunknown 20:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anheuser-Busch

Your last edit messed up the page pretty bad, but I don't know how to fix it without deleting the image entirely or allowing it to display again. You might wanna take a look at it. Cornell Rockey 19:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logos

Several images I've uploaded have been tagged as baid fair use by the bot and edited out of articles. When it comes to Category:Political logos the source is in 99% of cases the websites of the concerned party and the fair use rationale is that the image is used to illustrate the article of the party in question. --Soman 20:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rsflogosml.jpg

This image was created by me and is not currently used as I reloaded it as Image:Rsflogosml.png, so the jpg file can be deleted.--padraig3uk 23:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image from Polish Armed Forces in the East‎

Hi Betacommand, instead of reverting each other over the image on Polish Armed Forces in the East‎ why don't you just ask Lysy on his talk page and sort it there.--Britlawyer 00:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq football logos

They are logos so what is the problem? Why are you not removing all of the logos of NBA teams and such likes? The logo copyright template explains it so what are you doing? Chaldean 02:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Brands of the World logos

Betacommand - You've tagged Image:Barclayslogo.png‎ and Image:Atlassian.png‎ as having no source information. Both pages include links to the source at http://www.brandsoftheworld.com/. If there is some other problem here, please let me know. - Crosbiesmith 06:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also tagged them as missing their Fair use rationale. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 06:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale is that these logos specifically identify the firm concerned using the brand they themselves use to uniquely identify themselves. Where you find brands used in this way, please note that on the image page. - Crosbiesmith 21:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notices

The messages are so close to looking like spamming. I got 2 in a row (maybe 3 could not tell) asking about rationale. Please don't spam talk pages with many messages. One will do. It's highly annoying and inappropriate for massive messages. - Mike Beckham 06:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WROG-FM/WEEL-AM Logos

I have added fair-use rationale to the WROG and WEEL logos and readded them to their respective page. Sorry, I don't normally add fair use rationales to logos I upload. Take Care....NeutralHomer T:C 06:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC) (formerlly User:Orangemonster2k1)[reply]

Actually, I did right after messaging you. Take care....NeutralHomer T:C 08:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:2007ClaxtonShieldLogo.JPG

if in future you are going to tag an image like that its common courtesy to inform the uploader you are doing so. --Dan027 07:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bradford City A.F.C.

Hi, I see that you have removed the club crest from this page due to lack of fair use; I was wondering what I can do in order to allow the crest to be judged as fair use and consequently reimplemented. Thanks, GiantSnowman 16:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NHL Logos

Thank you for helping identify the NHL logos which where not properly tagged. I have started correcting them, see Image:Calsealslogo.gif and Image:Calgary Flames.gif. Feel free to jump in and use those as examples to correct the tags, instead of removing the images. Thanks! — MrDolomite • Talk 16:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you want to put the brakes on your bot there? The use of sports team logos in this context is longstanding and well-known, and it doesn't help matters that Wikipedia keeps changing the notifications and text required on the images on a periodic basis. Warning of correct tags is one thing, but summarily removing them without warning is unacceptable.  RGTraynor  17:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. A note on articles' talk pages would have been a far more sociable way to accomplish the same goal, without cluttering up the history of main articles with a removal/rv sequence. Not to mention that, as can be seen from your talk page here, this is disproportionately affecting non-U.S./Canadian articles whose contributors have less familiarity than North Americans with U.S. fair use requirements. VT hawkeyetalk to me 20:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CDA Logo fair use

Hi, I'm new at making the fair use rationale, I took it off the ISO wiki as the objectives are pretty much similar, is it okay for the picture? Gsingh 17:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Dr31

Something seems to be going awry with each of your edits to User talk:Dr31. Any clue what's going on there? This edit for example seems to enter the entire user talk page of someone else (Soman) into Dr31's talk. Metros232 17:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It just happened again here. It appears that you're notifying Dr31 of fair use removals of images that he didn't even upload and replacing his talk page with the talk page of the user you should be notifying. Oddly, this isn't happening with any other user, just Dr31. Any clue what's going on? Metros232 17:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, I just noticed...this is only happening anytime you go to do this with an image that ends in FA.gif. Metros232 17:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is still happening, see here. It's replaced his user talk page with the warning that's meant for another user. There have been 2 subsequent edits to it where the warnings have been replaced by new warnings for other users. Once again the FA.gif issue holds. Metros232 19:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
dammit I thought I fixed that.... Ill try another method later. Im off for a while. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 19:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:RupertMillard

I do not appreciate you thoughtlessly sending boilerplate messages to me. The second one is largely superfluous and they both concerned the same image, which was uploaded over a year ago, when I was newer contributor to this website and when it was easier to not notice that one had to provide a fair-use rationale for each use. It is also impolite (and factually incorrect!) to put "you must" as contributions to this encyclopaedia are voluntary. I think you would be better employed determining whether images are fair use or not yourself, rather than ordering another volunteers to do it. Finally, please sign your posts on talk pages. I'm surprised that a self-appointed policeman such as yourself does not already do this. Thank you. RupertMillard (Talk) 18:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deletion-addict

Why are you nominating everything for deletion? TThese images are fair use, as they are television logos, or road signs posted by the Province of Ontario. Why not just go ahead and nominate Main_Page for deletion? RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 18:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


sports logos

Why are you nominating all the sports logos I uploaded for deletion? They are just normal sports logos that are used on the team's page. All other sports articles on wiki do the same and they don't have their logos deleted. Thanks. Nokhodi 19:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont want to see the images deleted, but per our Fair use policy we have to source and provide rationales for every image. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 19:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now going after Speedway Team logos. There is no problem using speedway team logos, same as any other Sports logo. A sports club logo in low resolution. If it concerns you so much about these rationales then why not source them yourself instead of deleting them. This is why Wikipedia loses regular contributors yet vandalised pages are left. Hammer1980 21:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Why did you copy and paste someone else's talk page onto my talk page? I was very confused at first. Thanks.--milk the cows (Talk) 21:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Unspecified source for Image:Connacthrugby.png

This Image has been replaced by a new one where the Status and Source is specified... Delete away Stabilo boss 21:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot edits

You're not running automatic scripts on this account, are you? This seems quite suspicious, especially with the <!--BetacommandBot Message top--> comment. And this seems like an unlikely mistake to be making by hand. —METS501 (talk) 23:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

its not a Bot, I have created a script for reviewing Fair use images, tagging as needed and notifying the original up-loader. its a python script kinda like AWB built for images. as for the notes on the image page. those are their for by bot when it does ORFU checks. the Milk the cows edit is a glitch that i cant figure out, Im not sure how that is happening. Im reviewing the code in a few minutes to see if i can isolate whats causing the error. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 03:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University Logos

I've noticed you are removing Iranian university logos.

I think they conform to WP laws as do other logos such as [1][2][3][4] and [5], which all use the same tag.

Please give your reason for erasing them. Otherwise please restore them back.--Zereshk 00:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello?

Hi... I don't mean to be rude, but could you please see my comment (titled "Decline?") above? I would appreciate an answer. Thank you! :) --Catz [T • C] 01:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

in the last four months you have made less than 100 edits. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 03:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but is there a rule that says I have to have more than that in the last 4 months? --Catz [T • C] 20:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:1067fox.gif

Hi... I added a fair use rationale to this image which also includes the source. I'm no legal eagle so I hope it's enough for this simple image. If the rationale is good enough I will go ahead and take care of the other radio logo images that I have uploaded for various radio articles. Also, a bot keeps changing my non-free "radiologo" template to a generic one. I'm not quite sure why that keeps happening. Also, regarding some of my other uploads, what do I do if the source website is no longer there (mainly old radio logos where the station changed formats and thus changed the website)? Should I just name the current website even though the logo is no longer on there? Thanks. RobDe68 04:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the block of a user...

I recently received an e-mail from a user called Wikcsb (talk · contribs) whom you blocked - however, this person had only undertaken two edits, but is that really good rationale to block the user because of two spam edits?

I think - rather I know - that there are accounts that have been created that are far more abusive towards Wikipedia. I think you ought to unblock the user and we should teach him/her how to behave correctly on Wikipedia,

Booksworm Talk to me! 09:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Discogs.Logo.png and other FU images uploaded before 4 May 2006

Concerning Your tagging FU images uploaded before 4 May 2006 with {{nrd}}, per the template message: This image or media, uploaded after 4 May 2006,... {{nrd}} is not applicable to those images. Please remove those misleading tags or replace them with appropriate ones. Also please do not rm. the images from their respective articles, instead add - {{speedy-image-c}} or similar to the image captions. Thanks, feydey 10:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not seeing a problem. The image is missing a fair use rationale, and in any case is orphaned. When it was uploaded is not particularly relevant in this case. --Durin 19:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

added article - Abhideyaka Abhishekam

i have added the article mentioned above and linked it to 3 images - Image:Abhideyaka Abhishekam.jpg, Image:Abhideyaka Abhishekam (Diamond).jpg, Image:Abhideyaka Abhishekam (Gold).jpg. hence i removed the orphan tags on the image desc pages of these three articles. If you have any issues, please do let me know. Kalyan 11:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a fair use rational for the use of Image:Abhideyaka Abhishekam (Diamond).jpg in *that* article? Thanks —— Eagle101Need help? 19:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Organization logos

How is displaying an organization logo, when the subject of the article is the organization, not fair use? Quatloo 13:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the image is copyright, to display non-free content we must provide a Fair use rationale for every page we want to use it on.

Fair Use Rationale for <article name here>

  1. The material should not be used in a manner that would imply endorsement by or for the logo's respective company
  2. No free equivalent will ever be available or could be created that would adequately give the same information.
  3. The image is of low resolution, which does not interfere with this logo by its respective company in trade
  4. The image used for educational and informational purposes by Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization.
  5. <why should we have the image in the article>
that is a simple fairuse rational that would work for most logos. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 13:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot think of an instance where the use of a logo would not be fair use, in that every logo in Wikipedia would either (a) illustrate an article for which the entity using the logo has some relation, or (b) some artistic discussion of the logo itself, or the logo's creator, etc. This would not apply to other images, just... logos. Yet you seem to be targeting logos? Quatloo 19:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that is just where I started, im going to be expanding. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 19:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Composure

I know how hard it is to keep composure when threatened, that's one of the objections editors have raised with me. I edited your comment on BetacommandBot's page, you might want to re-edit it again to remove my commentary. Cheers, and keep up the good work. Nardman1 16:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted you, Matthew's repeated comments and post are veiled, personal attacks, saying that I cant program, that I steal others code's and other attacks that are completely out of order. the reason that i think that he is doing this is because Im one of the people who removed the Fair use abuse in the list of .. Episode pages. and I also am cleaning out our fair use images that are against policy. My choice of words are specific This is to-date only the second time Ive had to use strong language. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 16:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

error with this bot? (Image:Cambodiaflag emblem map by Melanochromis.jpg)

I'm removing the bot's tag on this image for the second time. This image is fair use and is not orphaned as it is currently used by portal:cambodia. I think there might be an error with your bot as it cannot detect uses if images by portals. --Melanochromis 08:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why...

Why is your bot mass tagging images as having no fair use rationale? Do you really want countless fair use images to be deleted from Wikipedia because no one has yet written a rationale for them?

Also, why did you tag Image:101.5 CIL-FM logo.png and Image:1050 ESPN logo.png with the "no source" template? The source is the companies who made these logos and the copyright status is clear. Isn't the "no source" template for when there is insufficient source information to verify the copyright status? —Remember the dot (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No rationale == deletion plain and simple per policy. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 19:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take a hike.

You're tagging logos of public corporations where the logos are easily accessible? This bot should be dismantled. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 19:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fear you're wrong and he's right - David Gerard 19:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • On Betacommand's behalf, why thank you! Hikes are very refreshing and good for your heart health. All fair use images need a fair use rationale for each use on the project, per our policies. See Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria item #10. Enjoy, --Durin 19:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • For logos of companies, would it not seem more productive to provide a fair use rational instead of just in essense throwing it away. I am not an expert on images, and correct me if I am wrong, arent corporate logos commonly used under appropriate fair use critera? If this is the case, find a way to tag them appropriatley instead of tagging them for throw away. Just a friendly suggestion. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The more global issue here is what the logo contributes to the article, with respect to fair use claims. In the vast majority of cases, the articles that use a company logo do not discuss the logo in any way. They use it only for decorative purposes. This is one way of responding to that; if you can't provide a reasonable fair use rationale on why a corporate logo should be on an article that doesn't discuss the logo, then delete. --Durin 20:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • logo can stay if the article "discusses the logo" - one of the most stupid things I've heard.
Logos are a key part of the identity of an organization and something readers can generally relate to quite easily. I would hardly describe their use as being "decorative" given their core function is to create a visual identity for an organization and speak to people both inside and outside the organization about the organization. The argument about articles "not discussing the logo" reeks of hairsplitting nonsense. Wiggy! 22:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unlicensed image

Thanks for the heads-up on the image at Covenant Life Church. As of now, this is an outdated logo whose source on the Web is no longer valid, so I think it can be safely deleted. I may look for an updated logo if I have the time. --Tschel 21:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Croatian football club logos

It's not right to remove the logos from those articles; it's fairly clear that the logos come from the clubs themselves and that they qualify under fair use guidelines, so the only problem is the omission of an explicit source reference by the uploader. You should fix that problem by asking the uploader to fix that; not by going over the top and removing images. --Joy [shallot] 21:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sports club logos

You've got a page full of comments and complaints about your bot tagging sports logos. If you're not gonna rein in that gizmo it might be in order (and probably generally acknowleged as a civil thing to do by legions of other editors) to provide some clear, simple instruction as to how you expect these types of logos to be tagged or point to an unambiguous reference on how to do that. Wiggy! 21:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Various logos

Please stop removing logos from articles about the companies or groups the logos belong to. I could understand removing them from articles that are not about those companies and groups, but the logo tag on the image clearly states that the logo falls under fair use when used in the article about the company or group that owns the logo. As evidenced by the multiple complaints above, it appears you are going beyond acceptable bounds here. Please stop now. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, please read our fair use policy, every fair use image MUST have a specific individual rationale, no template can cover those grounds. If not they need to be removed and deleted. its that simple. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 22:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then be a little more productive and toss in a simple fair use rationale rather than wasting everyone else's time in something you could have easily fixed without all this extra hassle. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The burden of providing a fair-use rationale MUST lie with the contributor or someone actively editing the article. Betacommand has no way to read your mind. I disagree with him on plenty of things, but this is not one of them. The uploaders/editors who are not properly adding a rationale are the ones wasting time. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All I'm wondering is why he's wasting everyone else's time when he could just as easily pop in a fair use rationale himself in the same amount of time it takes to have his bot go through tagging everything. They are all logos, so the fair use rationale would be exactly the same for each one. And many of these logos where uploaded long before the current policy revision was enacted. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, if he's too "lazy" to put in the fairuse rationale, why not add a deletion warning below in the image in the article mainspace? This way, at least there's a chance that some editors might come by the article and add in the rationale. Then maybe after a week or two he can go through the list again and delete them, sine apparently he's got a lot of time on his hands. The way he's handling this right now is really stupid and counterproductive. Blueshirts 22:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Betacommand&oldid=131647127"