User talk:DASHBot/image

Cant edit?

Whats the point of linking users here if they can't even disable the bot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigfellaTM (talk • contribs)

For a time, it was not protected. The problem we ran into is that the bot is and has been functioning perfectly for this particular task, but people shut it down anyway. It's a pretty simple task. If a page does not exist in an actual article in the main Wikipedia namespace, and that page contains images or sound files that are non-free, then remove them per WP:NFCC #9. The only valid reason to shut down the bot is if it is malfunctioning. The bot removed three files from User:BigfellaTM/ROHsandbox. They were File:B137.jpg, File:WMsantana.jpg, and File:WMandre.jpg. All three files are clearly marked as copyrighted, non-free files. It would appear the bot is functioning properly. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from , 16 October 2011

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please reactivate (revert to last version). Thank you, kind sysop. -- Tim 1357 ^talk 14:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC) (The Bot's Owner)[reply]

Too Fast!!!

Please give me time to edit and build a page for Wikipedia. I am trying to do this but working slowly as I have a job and can't dedicate every moment of the day to it. However when I come back to the work and try to finish it I find it has been vandalised by bots. Please make your bot less efficient. I suggest only working on pages that have not been changed for (say) 2 weeks, so that editors who are half way through building an article don't get it vandalised. I would appreciate you switching off the bot until you have done this modification. Thank you. Mike Young (talk) 17:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I would like to spend my time making a new article not arguing about this... Thanks.

Mike, I'm sorry you're having to deal with this. I recommended a change in policy to allow development articles a pass for a couple of weeks such that they could include non-free content while in development. But, the recommendation didn't pass. So, we're left with an absolute; you can't use non-free content, even in development articles, that are not in the actual article namespace (for example, in your userspace). You can use File:Example.jpg as a placeholder, and place  tags around the actual image you want to use. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 5 January 2012

{{edit protected}} It would be nice if it gave you 48 hours before deleting an image that said in the description, was take/created by me, of my screen (it was part of a screen shot)...

GeeZ...I mean, if I didn't want the image that I created to be publicly available and free, I wouldn't have uploaded it! (never upload anything you want to keep private or you don't want spread all over the internet!!! - 'Internet 101').

Astara Athenea (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done It just yes or no - there's no 48h parameter - suggest you discuss with bot's creator User talk:Tim1357. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Athenae: There's nothing to discuss. At the time the image was removed from his talk page, it did not have a specific license tag, but did have a non-free rationale. The bot acted correctly. Further, WP:NFCC #9 is absolute. There's no 48 grace period. Also, the act of uploading something does not release rights to the image. Such declaration must be specifically made, not implied. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for further instruction. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - This is a response to the above request -- I agree the bot acted correctly. Bots do what people tell them to do. What I disagree with is not the behavior of the bot, but not letting a newbie user, who didn't even know how to put a copyright tag on an image, let alone what one was, or that it was required, know what they needed to do to correct the problem, and give them a reasonable time to fix the problem **before** action was automatically taken. It's just a matter of 'niceties', or 'politeness'. Sure, I'd even put in smarts to the bot (if it was 'my baby') to "disaccomodate" abusers of a delay period (how many times have you been told you need to do this and you still don't get it; the perverse in me might divide the time allotted for correction by 2 each iteration w/o limit. ("you have 18.015 seconds to comply!")).

Also taken into account might have been that it was a logged in user and not anonymous? (dunno if that's considered important anymore or not). Just some ideas for implementation in your 'spare time'... ;-) Astara Athenea (talk) 23:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]