User talk:Quadell/Archive 37

Quadell, I noticed a user with many copyright violations in their uploaded images, Jbloun1 (t c). I have listed 5 of his uploads for deletion, where I have been able to find copies on the web. However, I think that all of his images are probably copyvios, and he has uploaded them claiming PD-Self. The exif tags show that many different cameras were used, and the quality of the images vary from mediocre to somewhat professional. This all suggests to me that the images were found on the web somewhere, but I can't prove it. I tried to talk with this guy about it, but have received no response. He also seems to be agressively pushing these photos into articles, e.g. [1]. Can you advise how to proceed?

Example images (w/ camera):

• Image:United Nations Headquarters .jpg (SONY DSC-V3)
• Image:Hearst Tower.jpg (NIKON D80)
• Image:MoMa NYC.jpg (Panasonic DMC-FZ30)
• Image:Yankee Stadium11.jpg (Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL)
• Image:Municipal1.jpg (KODAK CX7430)
• Image:Mass Transit Reader.jpg (Canon EOS 20D)

Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 19:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

As you suspect, they're almost certainly all copyvios. An important thing to note, though, is that he hasn't edited much in the last month, and hasn't uploaded any images in over a month. I left him a "final warning" on his talk page in case he returns and does this again. I'm going to list all his uploads on WP:PUI, and I suspect they'll all be deleted. Thanks for tracking this! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks for your help. Glad these are getting cleaned up. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 21:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you please explain how de minimis applies to this image? It seems to me that the use of BBC News' logo, logotype, headlines and abstracts are clearly legible and identifiable, and fulfil a major rôle in the image. EdC (talk) 00:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The BBC logo is not a significant portion of the image, and is not and intentional portion of the image. Similarly, if you took a photo of a group of people, and one was wearing a Nike t-shirt with the swoop clearly visible, this would be de minimis because (a) the logo is not a significant portion of the overall new work, and (b) the logo's reproduction is an unintentional, circumstantial effect of the image (which was designed to portray the group, not Nike). What I've just described is the classic de minimis example. You can see how the same elements are in the dockwin image: the BBC logo is an circumstantial element of the image, which is designed to show the software. And the BBC logo is a small portion of the overall work. I hope this helps, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 00:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It feels to me that the BBC logo etc. are being intentionally used in the image, having the effect of showing the type of content the application is designed to display, and its manner of displaying it. The very effect of the design of the software is to draw the eye to the feed-dependent content displayed in it. EdC (talk) 00:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you happen to read the talk page about the content or did you just delete? I forwarded the email from the artist himself who was also the author of the website in question with permission to use the content. I'll wait for you to undo what you did. Thank you. Carter | Talk to me 04:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. Yes, I read the talk page, the article, and the page that the text was copied from. What do you mean by "I forwarded the e-mail"? Do you mean you forwarded it to me? I never got this e-mail. Do you mean you forwarded it to permissions@wikimedia.org? Or what exactly? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 05:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back. Wiggy! (talk) 22:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Glad to be here. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

A little strongly worded, but I'm very glad for the support. Much obliged.[2] Durova^Charge! 03:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

And a big thankyou from me too (re:Duke of Lancaster (ship)). You sucessfully spurred me into carrying out a long overdue rewrite, cheers! ;-) Best wishes, Snowy 1973 (talk) 01:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Quadell ... you deleted the articles in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brad Armstrong (Home and Away) but did not Close the AfD ... also, the PROD on Jazz Curtis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has expired ... Happy Editing! —72.75.72.199 (talk · contribs) 14:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. I deleted Jazz Curtis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) because of its listing on AfD, not its PROD. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

May I ask why you are deleting pages from the characters of Home and Away?. Screechy 15:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure. They were listed on WP:AFD for over 7 days, and the consensus was to delete. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brad Armstrong (Home and Away). – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you are working from, put you've fixed several of the problems at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2007 October 26/Articles. If you are working from that list, would you mind marking them as fixed (via <s></s> there? John Reaves 21:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes. I always cross out the ones I've done (unless I forget and miss one). – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I see what you've done, you just did the whole page and removed the transclusion from the main page. John Reaves 22:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah! Yeah, I probably forgot about striking off those. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

"Fair Use is Permitted

Fair use of copyrighted material includes the use of protected materials for non-commercial educational purposes, such as teaching, scholarship, research, criticism, commentary, and news reporting. Unless otherwise noted, users who wish to download or print text and image files from this Web site for such uses may do so without the Smithsonian Institution’s or FONZ's express permission, provided that they comply with the following conditions:

  1. The content may only be used for personal, educational, or noncommercial purposes;
  2. Users must cite the author and source of the content as they would material from any printed work;
  3. The citation must include all copyright information and other information associated with the content and the URL for the Smithsonian Institution website;
  4. None of the content may be altered or modified;
  5. Users must comply with all other terms or restrictions which may be applicable to the individual file, image, or text."

See here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikco (talk • contribs) 04:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

That may all be true, but Wikipedia declines to use images that are "non-commercial only", even though Wikipedia is a non-commercial enterprise. See User talk:Quadell/image deletion, linked from the top of this talk page. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 04:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the heads up - I could swear I read that somewhere once (that admins could check if articles were unwatched or not). It seems like a useful tool to have, but not one for everyone (I'm sure vandals would love to know what no one is watching). Perhaps I can suggest it... In any case, I am a bit embarrassed - do you think I should strike that in my statement or just leave it? Thanks again, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't be chagrined about Special:Unwatchedpages. I was pretty sure I had read about it somewhere, but I am not sure I would have ever found it on my own, so thanks to you and Elkman we both know about it now. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with your arbitrary deletion of Image:Salvatore_Lo_Piccolo.jpg and consider it a violation of you admin powers. Without any warning you deleted the image, while the discussion was not closed. As I explained several times the image was relevant and there is a reference in the article to the image, in combination with the other images. By removing the image this make no sense anymore, while it is a relevant issue in relation to his arrest. I restored the image and would appreciate that you refrain from removing it again. You overstepped your athorities here and any further discussion should be handled by another admin. - Mafia Expert (talk) 12:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't arbitrary, there was over a week of warning while it was listed at WP:IFD, the discussion was closed, and everyone but you agreed that it should be deleted. Please do not reupload images that have been deleted according to the IFD process, as they can be speedily deleted by any admin according to WP:CSD#G4. If you feel my deletion was against process, the proper channel is to bring it up at Wikipedia:Deletion review, rather than simply reuploading the image. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Everyone? That is you and somebody else. I do not consider the discussion closed because you and the "everyone" did not adress my arguments. I will not upload the same image again in order not to get it deleted automatically again, but replace it with another image that adresses the reference in the text. - Mafia Expert (talk) 12:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

How is this image replacable?

My understanding is that a picture of a toy would be a derived work, and thus copyright of the original copyright holder. Taemyr (talk) 17:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes and no. A photo of a toy might be deemed a derivative work (depending on the judge), and could be subject to the toy's copyright. But it would also create a new copyright -- that of the photograph itself. In the existing photograph, there are two copyrights to consider: the copyright held by the photographer on the photograph itself, and (perhaps) the copyright held by the toy manufacturer. If you were to create a new photograph of the toy and license that photo under a free license, we would still have to claim "fair use" on the representation of the toy, but not on the photograph itself (which would be free). With the current photo, we unnecessarily have to use a non-free photo (rather than a free one) to represent a non-free underlying product. It has generally held on Wikipedia that we have to use free photos to represent these, even if an additional fair use claim has to be made on the representation of the underlying subject. (This hasn't been without controversy, but it's the way the community has pretty consistently interpreted WP:NFC in these instances.) All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind comment about Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami's FA. NancyHeise (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Quadell. It looks like we both made a mistake on this image. The uploader originally puloaded his own image, and someone else came along and replaced it with a fair use image. Please undelete it. The Evil Spartan (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Ack! I was hoodwinked! I restored the PD version of the image, along with the image description that related to it. Thanks for finding that. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 23:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for both your kind words and your lascivious speculation. :-) Jayjg ^(talk) 03:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

But in truth I had very little to do with it. The article was almost done when I got involved; I just tidied it up a bit. Still, I'm happy the next stage in the Solar Systme project is now in sight. :-) Serendi^podous 03:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

and thanks for the kind words to me too! Jimfbleak (talk) 06:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I think you accidentally deleted

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Work_permit

The Work Permit page exists, and there was a lot of useful material on the talk page. Thanks, 67.168.65.207 (talk) 12:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops! You're right, I've restored it. Thanks for pointing that out. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the courtesy message. I think we've been through enough of these cycles/rituals of picture deletion so that I think everyone knows their part. If you think the pic is replaceable is fine with me. Thanks again. Dr.K. (talk) 16:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It is my pleasure. I have taken many photos such as that one - I intend to add pics wherever possible when I have time.Paulba Legend (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The image is for a $20,000 amp - thus unlikely to be available to just anyone to take a photo of. I have added even more fair use rational to the article. Fosnez (talk) 11:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I'm sending you this message since you were involved in the August 2005 survey on year pages. As I don't know if you've gathered, somebody has been fighting for a change to the house style on how to notate multiple events on the same date. A discussion is currently in progress - your contribution would be appreciated! -- Smjg (talk) 15:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I actually struggled to come up with a better heading. The problem is, that's the only thing Stoller's known for: making specious claims of trademark infringement. The "Vexation litigation" phrase is not subjective; that was a finding by the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. He made his living, such as it was, by making false claims of trademark infringement, and accepting settlements as a nuisance.

He's certainly not in the Internet or Software business as currently classified.

I'll remove his entry (which I believe was placed by Stoller himself) unless anyone can come up with a better categorization. -- TJRC (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you please undelete the following images? We got an OTRS GFDL license for all images from Bloggingheads.tv (details here, Riana confirmed the license). When they're undeleted, I'll correctly tag them and move them out to Commons.

• Image:David Frum.jpg
• Image:Francis Fukuyama BH.jpg
• Image:Joshua Cohen.jpg
• Image:John Horgan Journalist.jpg

Thanks! Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I got it. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I've Commons-ized them so you can re-delete them. :) Videmus Omnia ^Talk 13:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for requesting a glance-over for this article. While it shows some significant improvement, I believe that it has some statements which don't adhere to WP:NPOV. The most obvious ones include "curiously" and "it should be noted". Small statements like that reflect a media bias, and should be removed.

On another note, it might just be me, but is the title of the article somewhat misleading? At first look, I thought it was a biographical article, but upon reading it it's clear that it's an article about an event, not a person. The name also places undue emphasis on Davis.

Hope that some of that helps. I'll cross post at the talk page. _Jame§^ugrono 05:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The image Guy Verhofstadt 2007.jpg was uploaded for insertion in the article Europe Book Prize. The source of the image file and the web link authorizing use of the image elsewhere was also provided. In my understanding it is usable in Wikipedia within its policy standards. Such a speedy deletion was unwarranted and disheartening. Notably I am registered with the European Commission for downloading and using this image. -Faizul Latif Chowdhury, Brussels, 16 December 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faizul Latif Chowdhury (talk • contribs) 21:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that Wikipedia chooses not to accept non-commercial-only images. Our policy, WP:CSD#I3, states that such images should be deleted as soon as possible. Please note our non-free content policy, which explains what can and cannot be used in detail. Don't be disheartened! Any image released under a free license (such as the GFDL or some of the Creative Commons licenses) can be used freely. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

We need a kind of final ruling on [3]. See also [4]. We respect Getty's copyfraud most of the time, why not this company's? -Nard 02:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Boy, that's chewy. I commented there. I'll close it in a week if there's no further discussion. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi There, First of all this is not a complaint! I just uploaded the above mentioned file, which is a film poster. I really struggle figuring out how to upload a file without it being deleted straight away. There is no awailable option to choose when uploading a file like ours that reflects the licence we hold. Its our poster. We hold the licence. But because it is promotional material we do support the distribution on the internet. And in this case we really want to have the official poster next to the article about the film. So I'm a bit confused what to do...any ideas? Thanks The Black Balloon (talk) 12:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I can help. Wikipedia is licensed under the GFDL, a free license, which means that any other third parties are allowed to copy all of Wikipedia's content and reproduce it elsewhere. (This is part of our mission to be a truly free and open source encyclopedia.) Because of this, we will only host images that uploaders submit if they are willing to license that images under a free license (which allows third parties to reproduce and modify the images, even for profit, without asking for permission first). If you decide that you are willing to license this poster under a free license, then we are quite willing to host it! But if you won't release it in this way, that's fine, that's your right -- but we won't be able to host it on our site.

One option you have is to upload a small, low-resolution version of the poster, and license only that small version under the GFDL. Other websites could copy that small image, but a larger, hi-resolution version would still be restricted. Would this work for you?

All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I tried reasoning with the uploader on other issues, & he just won't go through OTRS to get "proof" of the claims! SkierRMH (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to update the license and fair use statements Image:Pure Potential Logo.jpg There is one problem that still remains, and that is the source of the image. The listed source does not seem to contain the exact image that was uploaded. It does have a flash version of the image. Any idea how to determine the true source of the image? Dbiel ^(Talk) 02:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It could have been made by taking a screenshot. It's not all that important, though, since the source is obviously Pure Potential. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 02:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I am still trying to get a handle on just how important the actual source of the image is. If a similar source and/or ovious link to the copywrite holder is all that is needed, then I will stop being so picky about the actual source. May I you your above statement as a general guideline? Dbiel ^(Talk) 03:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Some people are more picky about sources than others. I tend to think that if it's a logo, and it's obvious what company is represented, then we know who owns the trademark. Any more sourcing is, in my opinion, icing on the cake. But some people think there should be some sort of link, so I usually link to the website. It's the same with CD covers: it doesn't matter whether we get the CD cover image from Amazon, MySpace, or a personal scan -- either way, the copyright-holder is the label. But, again, someone else might delete a CD cover with no explicit source (erroneously, in my opinion), so just to be safe I usually link to an online source. Hope this helps, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 03:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again, and yes this does help a lot. Dbiel ^(Talk) 03:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Quadell,

Thankyou for sorting out the situation with those images expediently :-) I've notified the uploader, article talk, WP:CP and WP:PUI of the deletion, and removed the inlines of these images from the article. Here's hoping those working on that article can re-upload one or two of them, this time with the right Copyright info. — digitaleon • talk @ 03:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:AEL1964-Crest.svg - would Polbot swallow that OK now? Carcharoth (talk) 16:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. It looks great now (except the "purpose" is worded badly, imho), so Polbot would ignore it entirely. Thanks! (Polbot's already getting thanks for the work, and she's only on the Cs.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Quadell. You might be interested in this: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Too_many_redundant_stubs Happy editing. Valentinian ^{T / C} 17:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me. I don't think a "no stubs" policy has much of a chance, though. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm positive that pic was deleted from the commons. Whoever did it said something along the lines of "copyvio. Obviously not Mcrazychick". Anyway it's back now - weird. The pic on en.wiki still needs deleting though -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 22:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Why was the IFD discussion closed after a day only? — Rlevse • Talk • 00:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Because it doesn't exist on the English Wikipedia. It only exists on Commons. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 00:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Uh, not quite, you yourself said "I have moved this to Commons...", so you moved it then used that to justify closing it here. I think you overstepped your bounds here. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I frequently move images to Commons when they could conceivably be useful but aren't used here. Images that are the same on Commons can be speedily deleted here by any admin, so I don't see anything wrong with that. I wasn't using that move to justify closing it, as you put it -- I have no reason to want to close it. There's no ulterior motive here. Would you like me to reopen the discussion on an image that no longer exists here? Would you like me to undelete it here, even though it exists on Commons, so that some other admin can speedily delete it? I'm not sure what you're asking for here. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, look what I started :-/ For what it's worth, I think the image needs deleting from en.wiki and the Commons. I'm not offended by such pictures, but Jimbo removed it from the user's page and told her not to upload such images and/or to use userspace as a personal webpage, so she retired. Both images serve no purpose to wiki, both are, or should by now be orphaned. -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 02:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, you may be right. After several users voiced their opinion here, at the IFD, and on Commons, it's become clear to me that there's consensus to delete there as well. So I did. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 03:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome :)--Pgagnon999 (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I noticed Polbot recently added a fair-use rationale to Image:HR Block logo.png. It's a very nice rationale, but I do note the image is not actually tagged as being fair use; rather, it is tagged as {{PD-ineligible}} (since it is just a square with a line of text next to it) and {{Trademark}}. While I like the "wikt:belt and suspenders" approach, I'm not sure if you intended your bot to perform that sort of edit. Also, BTW, it used & in the edit summary which ended up as a redlink. Anomie⚔ 12:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It's probably not copyrighted, but it's certainly trademarked. Therefore it's still "non-free media" and, as I understand it, it still needs a non-free use rationale. The rationale doesn't say that it's copyrighted. I hope it's an improvement. :) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Unless the policies have changed recently, simply being trademarked doesn't require a rationale. I notice someone has moved the image in question to Commons, which further indicates to me that trademark protection isn't sufficient to trigger non-freeness in the Wikipedia sense. Anomie⚔ 01:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we're treating logos consistently. I may be incorrect on what's the latest agreement. We need a good policy on the matter. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words :), however I can't take all the credit. User:Marmelad was creating a vector version of Image:Alosizes(v2).png by User:Dropzink. It was started by Marmelad and I finnished it off. But Anyway, once agian thanks :) cheers. Steveoc 86 (talk) 15:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the compliment, and have a great day! J. Spencer (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		For creating a bot (Polbot) that adds "correct" fair-use rationales to images and creating a bot that actually helps the user, I award you this barnstar. Good work! :) - NeutralHomer T:C 16:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

  Thanks! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

You're Welcome! :) - NeutralHomer ^T:C 19:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for kind words, I've responded on the review page. Jimfbleak (talk) 17:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for adding a fair-use rationale for an image I missed. I didn't fully understand rationale templates when I started uploading them. Thanks again. :) Man from the Ministry (talk) 18:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Talking of rationales, your bot is adding them to image pages that already have rationales. Is it supposed to do that? Also would it be possible for the bot to remove invalid rationale notices placed by BetaCommandBot when adding a rationale? ^anemone│_projectors 19:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I didn't do a merger of the two explanations but I did expand the ending. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

your bot is making a huge mess and butchering rationales, its adding wrong rationales. β^_command 23:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I won't enter in the merit of the edits, but the bot is currently running a task for which it has never received approval. I have to ask you to stop. Happy editing, Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 23:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I would also ask that you revert all the edits related to the unapproved task this bot has made (unless they have already been reverted). It's making a considerable mess and I would appreciate if your bot could rectify this mess. Nick (talk) 23:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the bot. Feel free to unblock as soon as the problem is resolved ;-) Happy editing, Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 23:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I was just coming here to say that I noticed the bot making a clearly incorrect rationale for Image:Abc_seal.gif. The point of the rationale and the link to the article is not just to be Yet Another rule for the heck of it, but to ensure that the rationale given, well, rationalizes each specific use in each article. The effect of your bot, though, seems to be that it creates the sometimes erroneous claim that whichever rationale there does justify the specific use of an image in the article that the image happens to be in (clearly a bad assumption for the image linked). I don't think this is a task a bot is smart enough to perform. Dmcdevit·t 00:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Should we rollback every FUR addition? Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 00:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm back. No, I didn't think to get bot approval for this task, and I should have. When I open an official bot request, hopefully tomorrow, I suppose all these concerns will come up there. To try to keep discussion in one place I'll lay out my reasoning there instead of responding to each concern here. (For now I'll just say I think Betacommand's characterization of Polbot's activity is incorrect.) 'Til tomorrow, all the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I hope you get approval. It will be a welcome balance to all the fairly used images being deleted due to Betacommandbot's rampages. -- TJRC (talk) 01:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. I don't know about running an unmonitored bot for adding whole rationales, but the article name additions were a great idea. Thanks for showing initiative in actually helping retain useful images. I doubt I'm the only one to find BC's above complaint kind of ironic. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 02:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

When I saw the bot running, I was glad to see someone was taking steps to fix easy problems like the article name backlinks. I'll contribute on the bot request page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe not the best place for this, but due to the complex nature of fair use rationale and the multiple ways they have been done, it is impossible to create a bot that will run unattended without making for too many mistakes. The way the bot has been working, it looks like a great tool for a semi automatic fuction, BUT each page needs to be reviewed in detail before any automatic edit is saved. I have already posted problems related to the bot on its talk page such as adding the article name multiple times in a single FUR while ignoring the additional FUR's on that same page. Creating a duplicate FUR simply because the previous one was of a different format both being unacceptable edits. Dbiel ^(Talk) 03:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI, to centralize, there's now a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Polbot. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't feel too bad about it, Quadell. We all make mistakes sometimes. :D Maser ^(Talk!) 04:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Does it make anyone else laugh that BetaCommand was the first to complain about Polbot? I would love to see where Polbot is "a huge mess and butchering rationales". Personally, I think Polbot is doing a great service, a service that will put the, as TJRC put it, "rampages" of BetaCommand Bot out of business, once and for all.

Ya just gotta laugh at that one. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 06:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it really even practical to add blanket, automated rationales to images? If this made sense from a legality standpoint, wouldn't it be more practical to select from a FUR list when uploading, similar to the licensing list? Adding blanket FURs to images without a knowledge of each image and its use is not only a bad idea, but also opens a can of worms of many images being uploaded with these blanket FURs put on them, when they may very well be far from valid. Don't get me wrong, Quadell - I applaud your effort with your bot, but in this instance it may be ill-advised. JPG-GR (talk) 07:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not adding rationales. It is attempting to fix older rationales that were written before the article parameter was introduced (though the rationales still required an article to be named), or recent ones where people have (incorrectly) assumed that the automatically generated link is enough (it's not). As far as I can tell, Polbot has never tried to write a rationale from scratch. That would be silly. Carcharoth (talk) 08:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I see it is trying to fill in templated rationales from scratch. That should stop. Carcharoth (talk) 08:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It will also add the article name multiple times to the first FUR when a second FUR is also exists that does not have an article name as part of its entry (documented on Polbot's talk page). Another error in programming.Dbiel ^(Talk) 10:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It bothers me that if Polbot even was adding rationales to a page, that you all would think it was wrong. Why would it be wrong? After vandalism, images that don't have an F-UR account for more warnings issued. If there was a bot that actually put F-URs on images, this would eliminate a big problem on Wikipedia....invalid F-URs or outright unrationaled images. You would think this would be something that would have already been done, but the fact that someone came up with this idea and it is getting slammed is kinda odd. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 10:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

There are many things that need to be done by humans, not bots. Bots can do some repair work, but writing explanations from scratch is not one of them, even if it is a form letter. Some FURs can be form letters, many can't be. For example, all the "historic images" need individual "purpose" bits added. Sometimes the surrounding data (article name, copyright holder, and some other things) can be added by automated methods, and some purposes are the same across a wide variety of images. But many rationales need individual bits added. Bots can't do that. They can process human-generated lists and dump the human writing in the right place, but they can't do the writing. Carcharoth (talk) 11:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, that does make sense. I guess it would have to be a limited list of things it can add F-URs to. Radio/TV Logos, Movie logos, stuff like that. Historic images and images that require human input would be out.....but images that you can just slap an F-UR on (like a radio or TV logo) would be a good place for this bot. I bet there are other areas where this bot would do some good work too...but now I understand what you all mean. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 12:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, this bot only added rationales to logos, book covers, and album covers. It only added rationales where there was a single article the image was used in, and the bot had reason to believe that article was an article on the book, album, or organization represented by the image. There are a few stray cases where the bot added a rationale that did not actually apply, but this was far less than 1% of the cases, and the rationale did always say something to the effect of "This rationale only covers use in the article on this book/album/organization. Any other use requires a different, separate rational(whatever) $inarticle article. If this is not correct, please remove." So I see the "damage" (if you want to call it that) of adding an inapplicable rationale as minimal.

Adding the article name multiple times in one rationale is not necessarily a bad thing. When the image has more than one FUR, or is used in more than one article, Polbot shouldn't be touching it. It should be putting it in User:Quadell/Report on backlinks. Carcharoth (talk) 10:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The bot didn't change any images used in multiple articles. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Bot unblocked. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 13:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've opened a bot request at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Polbot 7. Let's take any new discussion there. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks good on you. See now though, I suck at the whole <div style/> blah, blah, blah... But aren't you a computer scientist?!? <grin/>--DO11.10 (talk) 05:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You bet your grant application I am!   – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

at Talk:Western painting please reply there: Your claim that " Each non-free image which is truly useful in the article needs to be mentioned in the text (not just the image's caption)" is new to me. I understand that just giving a title and artist name in a caption does not amount to discussion, but see no reason why a longer caption commenting on the work should not do so. Please clarify what you are saying, and produce policy references if you are indeed saying this. Thanks Johnbod (talk) 13:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Please revisit this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_November_30#Image:Mart-Sander-and-Swing-Swind.jpg Do you know how to reinstate the QE II image? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You have to be an administrator to undelete the image. I am an administrator, but I've commented too much in this issue to close it as an "uninvolved admin". If you can find an uninvolved admin willing to close the case, that'd be great! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you undelete the local copy of this file? It is PD-US but not PD in Germany, and I want the local copy restored before commonsdelinker gets ahold of it. -Nard 15:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

  Done. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Ta! -Nard 19:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey Quadell (or your Quadell, whichever you prefer ;-) ),
I just wanted to let you know that an edit war may be brewing in Blu-ray Disc#Corporate Support. The topic is a poster from a pornographic video released in Germany that User:Fairseeder keeps putting back. Myself and at least two other people agree that this potentially scandalous image has no place in an article about an optical disc format and could potentially turn away casual users of Wikipedia. I realize that Wikipedia is not censored, but I strongly feel that this picture has no place in that article. I don't know if it is standard policy to notify an admin before an edit war starts (I'm still kind of new here), but I felt that it couldn't hurt to let someone know about it. I just removed the image from the page and I would like to request that Fairseeder be temporarily blocked if he keeps putting it back.
Thanks, Thingg (talk) 00:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not worried about the explicit content. But I am concerned that this is a non-free image used in an article where it's not relevant. I have nominated the image for deletion, and I'll keep an eye on the page. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Quadell, permission has been sent to the OTRS system about Image:Zac Efron 2007.jpg, stating that I have permission to upload it as CC-3.0-BY. --Dan Leveille^TALK 00:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I apologize. I saw the wrong date timestamp and thought you deleted my image. Sorry! --Dan Leveille^TALK 00:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I did delete the image. . . but I deleted it at Wikipedia (here), and the image also exists at the Commons (Commons:Image:Zac_Efron_2007.jpg) Images at the Commons also show up here. Have you received OTRS confirmation yet? (Sometimes it takes a while.) User:Videmus Omnia is really the pro for getting OTRS situations cleared up, and he's an admin on the Commons, so you might want to chat with him about it if you have questions. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey Quadell, I just wanted to say thanks for your help in the whole Blu-ray edit war. I also want to apologize for starting an edit war in that article. I wasn't trying to do so, but I very strongly feel that that image is not relevant to the article and should be removed. (also, I just found out that the premise for including it, that it was the first porn movie released on bluray, may be inaccurate. I read in a few places that the first porn bluray movies were released in Japan.) Anyway, if you remove the block and someone puts the pic back in, I will not revert it. (I think that kind of counts as a consensus: I gave up) So, again, if you want to remove the block, I think it would be ok. Just a comment: I don't understand why no one cares about 12 year old kids accidently stumbling across that pic. I know that Wikipedia is not censored, but I think there should be some kind of guideline for putting explicit content in pages that are not about subjects that may relate to explicit content. I know that may sound weird, but I know that Wikipedia already gets a lot of flack for letting anyone off the street edit it, and I don't thnk having that kind of content in pages that have no relation to an explicit subject is going to help Wikipedia's image in the wider world.
I now that comment thing probably sounds weird, but I just really needed to put my concern out there... Anyway, thanks again for your help, I really appreciate it. Thingg (talk) 16:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)