Knowledge (XXG):Bots/Requests for approval/Polbot 7

1652:(only recommended). It's only required to have the name of the article the image is used in, and that name can be anywhere, not just a rationale template. Thus those images in the "lacking article backlink" category really only refer to the lack of a link in the template. It is possible the article is named or linked elsewhere on the page. If that's the case, then Betacommandbot won't tag it. If Betacommandbot does tag images in the "lacking article backlink" category, it is because most of those images are a subset of those lacking any name or link to an article. That wasn't clearer, was it? The other complication is that the article name field in that rationale was a late addition (or at least was not there for a substantial period of time). Some rationales were written using a template that didn't include the "article" parameter, or were written when there was no article parameter. Thus we get incomplete rationales due to that, and incomplete rationales due to people not filling it in correctly. The latter is the fault of those filling it in. The former is the fault of the system. And yes, some admins (when clearing huge backlogs) do delete images with rationales that are easy to fix by adding an article name (and give NFCC#10c as the reason, even if they really mean they are deleting it for another reason). I don't think such admins should be shot, but they should be told not to do it again, and be asked to undelete and fix the images. 2992:

have seen of Polbot first unauthorized run would be well over 90% and probably closer to 99%) This would great aid in the real goal of making user images have the required fair use rationale. The purpose of a bot is to reduce the work required to be done by humans and Polbot does an excellent job of that with very few mistakes. I find it a much better method that the one being used by BetacommandBot which does not reduce any of the work required for adding the correct FUR and only makes it easier to find those images needing a FUR but does so by adding a 7 day delete notice which is impossible to keep up do to the vast number added at one time, and as a result, some admins simply blindly delete images that are properly being use for the sole reason of cleaning out the category after the 7 days have past.

2421:

be sure that if a non free image is posted on Knowledge (XXG) that it is being used within the requirements of fair use. So far I have not seen any images tagged/edited by Polbot that have not been used under acceptable fair use rules. Yes there are problems with missing rationales. But the way to fix that is NOT to delete the images, but to and and fix the rationales. I have personally seen betacommandbot tag images with valid FUR's with an invalid tag. Polbot will help to make Knowledge (XXG) better by helping to add FUR's as needed. Betacommand seem more intent on making Knowledge (XXG) worse by deleting images that are use properly but lack the required FUR's. Now which approach is actually better in the long run?

1548:

deleted the tag and made the same edit that Polbot did by inserting the missing "Article" field and entry rather than deleting the image. To restate, the original entry DID meet the requirements of Knowledge (XXG) for a fair use rationale, which currently does not require the use of the template, but it did not meet the current requirements of the template that was being used. Note: the article field was added on September 27, 2007, therefor any image using that template prior to that date needs to be edited, which is probably a good function for Polbot, but that would need to be covered under a separate request.

2956:

discussion). It's a shame, since I really don't have any recourse. If I run the bot without BC's approval (and ST47's approval), good faith admins will block the bot for running "unauthorized", regardless of how much community support it has. You've got to hand it to BetaCommand: with the support of just one person, ST47, he's managed to exercise unassailable control over making sure that no bot can prevent images from being deleted by improving their rationales. Can the community overrule a BAG member? It doesn't look like it. Can the community remove a BAG member from having this authority? According to

2699:

willingness expressed by many people to manually check its edits. Most bots sail through the approval process with far less. I've never seen a bot with such a low error rate, so many safeguards, and so much community support, be rejected. But, to be honest, I'm tired of fighting this. It's obvious to me that the community wants this function run, that the bot will perform a positive function, and that this bot is being stymied for ulterior reasons by the BAG. I've listed my reasons, carefully and fully, above. If BAG will not approve this bot, despite community consensus, then BAG is broken. –

1140:(ec, to Betacommand) I take great issue with your statistics. Can you really point to around a hundred logos where Polbot added a misleading rationale? I have only found one, and I've been through them as well. Could you please provide links? I'm also confused about your statement about BLP: can you link to any logos that were being used to illustrate a living person? I certainly understand about the reasons and importance of rationales, and if you read my "Function details" above, I agree with you 1332:

difs so we can discuss the matter intelligently. I think I would paraphrase your argument as this: "You can't be 100% sure that every rationale will be accurate. There is always the possibility that a tiny fraction of logos will be given rationales that don't actually apply. And it's better to leave the 99% untagged, and have them needlessly deleted, than tag the 1% incorrectly, and have them needlessly kept." I just don't agree with this position, and I doubt very many others do either. –

1484:

rationale in a template newly created for the purpose, that clearly explains that the rationale is as yet unapproved pending human review, and puts the image into an "images to review" category. Image reviewers can easily follow behind the bot to see if the rationale is correct for that particular image and use. If yes they can change the template name and it's approved. If no they can delete the rationale or flip some other switch to have a bot delete it. I hope that's clear.

1401:

due to the lack of some technical requirement that can generally be easily fixed. BUT I would like to get the commitment of the bot operator that he will not change the bot's function again without first going though the approval process, even if that change is simply moving to a different license type and doing basically the same function as with the logo license as the results may not be as acceptable and could be prone to a much greater error factor.

339:). I don't consider this a major problem, since (a) the rationale I add is usually superior, in that it's deliberately-worded and templated for ease of maintenance, (b) sometimes multiple humans add different rationales for the same image use, and it hasn't been a problem in the past, and (c) the existing rationale is frequently invalid anyway. If, however, the community views this as a problem, I could limit the rationale-adding to those that don't . – 2311:- what was wrong with the suggestion to have a two-step process? Bot adds rationale - human checks it and approves it. You will find more people to do such checking than you will to write rationales from scratch. This directly addresses the concerns raised, and if Quadell can agree to put Polbotted images in a "auto-generated FUR" category, then I see no reason for not approving this bot (speaking as someone who works on images, not on bots). 3222: 1058:

rationales you need to consider the usage, bots cannot do that. when images are tagged currently you have seven days to address the issues. when an image is tagged as no rationale who ever writes the rationale needs to consider the reason for its usage. if you slap on some invalid rationale it makes finding images that are used improperly hard. Now setting aside that, if we can create a valid system of categories that include

47: 3186:

window resulting in image deletions by some admins solely based on the tag which is a bit unfair when the image may have been uploaded over a year ago when the rules were different and all that is needed is an updated FUR with all the necessary information already available on the image page. To delete an image simply because the FUR does not contain a link to the article is stupid.

2515:

will fix the rationale format before someone else just deletes the image based on the invalid tag being added by Betacommandbot? Which method is better for Knowledge (XXG) in the long run? Also, keep in mind that Betacommandbot has already been approved for phase 4 auto deletion of images; a bad idea as far as I am concerned, but that is a separate issue not be be discussed here.

239:

arguments about BetacommandBot, changes to fair-use policy, or other side issues. Also, I recently ran this function without getting bot approval. This was a mistake. While I was out, the bot was blocked and her changes were reverted, which I understand. (That botrun also performed other functions, but I'm only addressing logo rationales here.) My error has been discussed

1417: 2761:

Betacommandbot's tag and delete method. Polbot actually adds a useful FUR than can be easily edited where Betacommandbot only tags the images for deletion. So just what is the real goal here? To tag and delete images or to add missing rationales to images that are being used properly? Polbot has already shown that it works effectivly in adding FURs that make sense.

983:

person). rationales serve a purpose they are not just some stamp you add to an image that makes it ok. they are for saying that this image should be on wikipedia and here is the reason. any bot wrtten rationales are crap, its an attempt to bypass policy and just rubber stamp OK on all single use non-free images. I hate to say this but bots cannot write rationales.

2366:

and to fix tagged images (so that the admins or other editors reviewing the image deletion categories can remove the deletion tags if they agree Polbot has fixed the images). If the reviewing admins or editors find anything wrong, then they can delete anyway (or try and fix it properly). Or is your statement above based on reviewing the bot code?

2982:

you cant blindly use all subcats either, you should review the cats and decide what is appropriate subcats to include. Like I have stated I like the idea behind this bot, but you need to do a cross check, blindly adding rationales defeats the purpose of the rationale. you have two choices, implement the crosscheck or withdraw your bot request.

3005:? This is why I believe a two-step process is needed. Betcommand, why can't you accept a two-step process? Bot tags - human approves. This is no different to your bot. It tags - and an admin approves the deletion. If, after a week, the image is still in the "unchecked bot rationale category", then Polbot goes back and undoes its own edit. 2771:

36 minutes, which I am slowly working my why through and reverting back as so far I have not found one that was reverted by Betacommand that there was any justificaton for reverting the FUR other than the simple fact that it was made by an unauthorized bot. That does not seem to be in the best interest of wikipedia in my book.

2709:

I made some of those suggestions. I do, in fact, think this bot is a good idea, and I was trying to find a way to get it operable in a narrow-enough scope to overcome the objections, with the confidence that, once it's operating, the wider community wouild find the bot beneficial and desire its scope

2365:

You seem to be misunderstanding the proposal. This bot is not designed to work solely on images tagged for deletion by Betacommandbot (ie. fixing images tagged for deletion without removing the deletion tag), but to fix both untagged images (so that Betacommandbot doesn't have to bother tagging them)

2073:

Why is the minor possible error factor related to this bot (which by the way would still add a useful shell FUR that could be easily edited) such an issue when BetacommandBot is permittted to make stupid errors, (tagging files that have vadid FUR's as being invalid forcing other users to clean up his

2062:

or something similar. Polbot could simply add any image it added a FUR to be part of this new category, The images could be removed from this category after being reviewed. The limitations already put on this request will result in very few invalid edits. It would greatly reduce the work of creating

2041:

Why not let Polbot run, and add the Polbotted images to a category that a human can check? If no-one has objected after 7 days, the images are removed from the category and kept. This is almost exactly the reverse of how Betacommandbot operates. I would even go so far as to say that Betacommand might

1933:

to βcommandbot's function of tagging-for-deletion those that still don't. I really think there's some assumptions of bad faith here, as if I were trying to undermine the Foundation's requirement. I support the that requirement -- I'm trying to satisfy it by adding proper rationales in those few cases

1547:

The edit was needed as the "Article" field is a required field in the template. As far as being in danger of being deleted, any admin who would have deleted it on those grounds should be shot. It was in danger of being tagged by a bot for the missing field, but anyone with any sense would have simply

1370:

left behind a happy user. How handy is that? The only thing I had to do was go back and re-do some of the bot patches that were un-done - despite their being correct - by over-zealous copyright copz. Some folks could take a lesson, get a broader perspective, stop being so mean-spirited, and engage in

1148:

is a bot-written rationale, for instance, and it is not crap. It's perfectly valid, and it has taken an out-of-policy image and brought it in line with policy. That's what this bot will do 99% of the time. Your statement that "its an attempt to bypass policy and just rubber stamp OK on all single use

750:

on the image description page. It is important that you list the author of the image if known (especially if different from the source), which is important both for copyright and for informational purposes. Some copyright licenses require that the original author receive credit for their work. If you

210:

Bots are extremely limited in their rationale-writing capabilities. For most uses of most images on Knowledge (XXG), a bot will never be able to write and accurate and useful rationale. However in a few cases, I believe that a bot could improve Knowledge (XXG) by adding a limited rationale for a very

3175:

I am attempting to work out a compromise with this bot, there have been several ideas that have been suggested, you ignore all of them, What I am saying is that you either need to implement a category crosscheck or self reversion after certain time period. the best compromise that I have seen is the

2590:

Actually, Perlwikipedia has a get_all_pages_in_category function, which gets, as the name states, all pages in a category or subcategories. It would be easy to make that into a lookup hash and compare each link to the image to that list. It would also be trivial to check for the name of that article

2420:

It seems to me that some of us have a very different view of the fair use project than other do. Betacommand and some others seem to think the best thing to do is to delete any image that does not have a fair use tag. This appears to me to go contrary to the goal. As I understand the goal, it is to

2237:

That would be fine if he wanted to run it under his own account, reviewing each edit, making sure the use is valid. That would in fact be better than a bot using the restrictions I stated above, as a user looking at the image, at the uploader's history if necessary, at the page the image is used on,

1614:

That is actually one of the problems, it is not flagged as a required field, but the way the template has been edited, it has become a functional requirement. The article field is used to fill in the article name at the top of the rationale. If the field is not used the the following is added to the

1483:

the bot could add an unenabled rationale, meaning it still technically has no rationale until a person looks at and approves it. Just as we require someone to examine an image by hand before deleting they can and probably should look at it by hand before approving the new rationale. You can add the

1465:

Rather than (simply) adding a comment that the use rationale was added by a bot, would it help to also add an extra hidden field that gives it a revision / run number? That way, if anyone ever decides they need to examine, delete, change, or categorize all these new rationales there will be an easy

1256:

are all not of low resolution, despite what the FUR states. Additionally, the generic fill-in for the "source" section is most likely unacceptable, as something like that could be written for EVERY image, and it doesn't mean much at all. This is the problem with bot-added FURs - they are too generic

1028:

My feeling is that the rationale can be checked at the same time as the sources and relevance are assessed, but they shouldn't be deleted for an invalid rationale simply because that can be detected programmatically. Ultimately, non-free images should have a checking system whereby trusted users can

828:

stages from creation to arrival at Knowledge (XXG), but only where relevant. The original source is the most important, but sometimes intermediate sources need to be credited as well. Ideally the proximate source is quoted as well, to allow complete verification of the provenance of the image. There

451:

Concerning point one, having two rationales is not uncommon, and is not contrary to any policy, but I'm open to skipping logos that have existing rationales (even if those existing rationales are almost certainly inferior). Concerning point two, the violation exists both before and after the change.

284:

images without rationale at the beginning of the year. (These images were uploaded back when rationales weren't required, or when that requirement wasn't enforced, and in many cases the original uploader is gone.) I understand the usefulness of this function, and I support it, but that makes it even

3038:

is a perfect example bots should not be creating rationales for those images, they are not cut and dry usage. Carcharoth that is an interesting idea about reverting itself after a period of time. that would reduce some of my worry that once polbot tags them they will not be reviewed at all and just

2981:

There is a reason that BAG does not approve this request. Blind addition of rationales defeat the purpose of them. If you cannot accept that you need to check the image is used on a company page, this bot will not be approved. I pointed to a supercat as an example of one that you could build off.

2770:

It is hard to understand why a bot that provides useful and accurate edits to assist in the major problem of dealing with images that do not have fair use rationales but are actually being used under fair use rules continues to be stonewalled. As a related note Betacommand reverted over 80 edits in

2731:

And what was wrong with the "Category:Images with auto created FUR's" suggestion? Betcommandbot tags images for admins and other editors to check and fix (and remove the tag) or delete. Why can't Polbot do the same thing? Add rationales and tag (or replace an existing 10c tag) the images for admins

2145:

Making sure it's a logo is easy. Making sure it's a logo of the subject of the page linked to? Well, as discussed above, this can be done with over 99% accuracy. And, as discussed above, it's impossible for a bot to know with 100% certainty. . . but it can create a list to be checked manually after

1877:

This bot should not be rushed just so it can work against another bot. That opinion gives me a bad feeling. Now, Betacommand has a valid concern, logos must be associated with a recognized organization or they cannot be used on that organization's article and this bot needs to ensure that it is not

1400:

I would say that based on the current limited function of this bot, the chances of it make a serious error appear very slim and it is better to error on the side of keeping a few images (which can easily be tagged for deletion if necessary) then to open a vast number of images to automatic deletion

366:

In these cases, the new rationale is incorrect and should be removed -- but I'll note that (a) it doesn't happen much (b) when it does happen, the image is almost always "unrationaleable", meaning that the image's use is against policy regardless of what rationale is used, and (c) in my opinion the

3185:

The self revert sounds like a good idea to me, as long as the time frame is long enough to allow for manual checking. The problem with BetacommandBot is that it tags over a 1,000 images at one time with a 7 day warning which does not allow enough time to review the tagged images within that 7 day

3108:

So seriously, given the above, why is this request being denied? I'll state here and now that I will happily confirm such edits by Polbot, and nominate any non-notable articles at AfD (or merge non-notable cases to lists). Well, I might just make a list, but still, I agree that not all these stubs

2991:

But what would be wrong with handling this as a two step process. Step one, the automating addition of a FUR and adding the page to a new category. Step two manually checking the pages in the new catetory and deleting the category entry from those that have been edited correctly (which from what I

2955:

It's obvious to anyone paying attention that BAG is engaging in a filibuster. They'd rather not deny a bot with obvious community support, but they don't want to approve it, due to BetaCommand's vested interests. So they drag this out as long as possible. It's been a month now (and 73 kilobytes of

2760:

It seems to me that as long as Polbot adds the new maintenance category there should be no reason to refuse a trial run. Remember an unauthorized run covering a much broader range of images was previously done with very few false edits. This just seems a much better way of fixing the problem, than

2514:

Making it a two step process should meet this concern. Simply add the images to a new category indicating that they need to be check. Is this any different in function from what Betacommandbot has been doing, tagging images for deletion that have valid fair use information and then hoping someone

1331:

Betacommand, I think you may be confused about what this bot will do. You mention BLP and album covers and the like, but that is expressly not relevant to this bot function. I really don't think there is a problem with logos being given incorrect rationales, but, as I said, I invite you to provide

1024:(sources). These can only be judged by humans. So the end result, if Polbot gets approval to do this, is that a large chunk of the images that could potentially be tagged for deletion, will now have to be checked manually to see if they comply with NFCC#8 and NFCC#10b. But this is not news at all. 964:

Thanks for the clarification, sorry if I missed the note that those functions had been deleted from the bot. I got confussed when you stated that you "fix" the problem of adding the article name multiple times. Did not realize that your fix was to remove that functionality. Thank you again for the

561:

simply says "By March 23, 2008, all existing files under an unacceptable license as per the above must either be accepted under an EDP, or shall be deleted." That's really the motivation behind creating this bot. I don't expect it's function to change in March. (I suspect it will be completed long

432:

A correct rationale does not protect from copyright violation. The rationales are to satisfy Knowledge (XXG) policies. Fair use does not require an existing rationale (you only have to provide one when challenged). I think your first point is valid, and I'd suggest limiting this bot's operation to

395:

Of the hundreds of logos Polbot added rationales to, only one has been found to have been incorrect (in that the article that the image was used in was not actually about the organization signified by the logo). Dbiel also pointed out a bug, which I fixed, and some users have noted Polbot adding a

3052:

being reviewed before deletion. Also, even when the bot-checkable NFC criteria have been checked, the question of how to check the other NFCC will still remain. I have made several suggestions on how this could be done. Would you (Betacommand) be interesting in working with me and others on that?

2184:

Regardless, you need to be sure that it won't tag a screenshot or any other image with a logo rationale, or a logo that is on an article unrelated to the subject of the logo, or a logo on no pages or on more than one, or one used improperly. As far as I see, you aren't checking the content of the

2174:

It might not be the logo of a corporation. It could be for an individual, a city, a concept, or anything else. This was all discussed above. If you're concerned about whether the bot works, why not authorize a trial run? Authorize, say, 50, and I'll go through afterwards and see if there were any

1677:

No that I have checked the source, and not that I'm taking any standpoint on if this bot should be allowed to do this or no, but I've though about some implementation limitation about article/image matching: The longest word in the filename must match any word in the article title, that same name

238:

I am aware of the culture war between the "more non-free images" faction and the "fewer non-free images" faction, and I expect that disagreement (with its attendant drama) to show up here. I sincerely hope we are able to limit discussion to this proposed bot function, and not get sidetracked with

3195:

I think it was a questionable decision to allow BetacommandBot another run without first approving this bot - by doing so a large amount of work that could have been automated / semi automated is going to have to be carried out manually. In order to progress this request, would it be possible to

2380:

There's no guarantee that each image will be fully reviewed to the extent that they should, or even at all. It's best that either the bot make sure of as much as is feasible. I realize that this bot isn't specifically following betacommandbot or any of the image bots, but it will inevitably run

2536:

That depends on how you define a valid rationale. BCBot does tag many images that are properly being used under fair use rules but only have technical issues with the fair use rationale that can be easily fixed. These are then far to easily deleted based on the tag rather than taking the time

1833:

It's about to be moot anyway. At the start of 2008, the process will begin to tag all non-free images for deletion if they don't have valid rationales. I appreciate the desire to make this bot as good as possible, but we've come down to the wire now. There isn't time for a major re-coding. The

1057:

i Dont have a list of the images I looked at, there were a lot of album covers that were missed labeled along with a lot other images that were improperly tagged. My point is simple, its a hell of a lot simpler to Identify images with with no rationale then a messed up rationale. When writing

982:

Id like to make a note here, I reviewed over 100 Polbot tags, 98% of what I looked over had problems, it was adding invalid logo rationales to images that were not used properly. and it was adding rationales to images that should clearly be deleted. (images of BLP used on the article about the

294:

The average quality of rationales added by humans is quite low. Most rationales have significant problems: they don't linkback to the article, they make incorrect assumptions about policy and copyright law, the "purpose" description is vague to the point of uselessness, etc. Even with Polbot's

2698:

With all three of these suggestions, I notice a common thread: they would severely limit the functionality of this bot, making it effective on as few images as possible. ST47 has taken it upon himself to delay and limit this bot as much as possible, despite its laudably low error rate and the

2504:

there is a cross check. blindly adding rationales hoping that they are appropriate is not a good idea. if the bot does a category cross-check and confirms that the rationales are appropriate I have no problem with that. But blindly adding rationales and hoping that they are correct is not OK.

481:

acceptable, but has no rationale, then my bot will add a valid rationale and prevent it from being deleted. If the image is used improperly, then no rationale will save it. But it should be deleted for being used inappropriately, not for missing a rationale, if the use is the real problem. –

695:

Thanks for your comments. Your first error you note is fixed, and I'll need to prove that during a trial run. Your observation about the source information is a valid concern, but consider: the reason we require a source is to ensure that the copyright-holder is credited. For a GE logo, the

725:", where "General Electric" is automatically inserted as the article name using the image, but that adds uncertainty and I'd rather not. The bot is not really able to determine the source link -- there's too much room for error there. I hope the sourcing will be deemed adequate as it is. 1395:

For logo's it creates a generalized source statement that is accurate to the extent of ownership, as the logo is generally owned by the organization it represents. I still question what Knowledge (XXG) expects as a source statement due to the fact the guideline are very lacking in this

1064:

corporations/organizations we might be able to do this function by crosschecking the image use page with the list of pages that are in that category. doing such a massive re-organization of the cat structure will take a lot of time. without the crosscheck I cannot support this bot.

363:

covers use in the article on this organization represented by this logo. Any other use requires a different, separate rationale. This rationale was generated by a bot, based on the fact that this is tagged as a logo and is used only in the article. If this is not correct, please

2155:

BAG is intended to make sure the bot works, and I'm not convinced that it does. Are you checking that the image is used on the page of a corporation and is at least somewhat related to that page, either by comparing titles or checking for the page name in the image description?

1929:"work against" any other bot. For the record, I approve of βcommandbot's function to tag for deletion those images without valid rationales, as required by the Foundation Resolution. My bot is designed to add proper rationales to some images that don't have them, which is a 704:

source might be the GE website, or a third-party site, or a scan from a magazine ad, but that's really not relevant. (This is also the case for album covers -- frequently the image is sourced to Amazon.com, but Amazon.com is just a middleman.) What's important is that the

2399:

How about if the bot skips any image with a dispute template? Then check how it's doing, and if it's doing OK, expand the scope. (Quadell's proposal has received a lot more discussion than certain other much less well-thought-out proposals that were speedily approved.)

949:

I'm saying that my botrun yesterday, which was terminated and reverted, did several things. It added backlinks to rationales. It added rationales to logos. It added rationales to album covers and book covers too. But that's not what I'm asking permission to run. I'm

2638:. It's not "too much work retooling for each logo category", but there simply isn't a logo category for each type of logo, and the vast majority of logo images don't use those categories. This would prevent this function from fixing most of the images that need it. 414:

Wrong rationale means copyright violation. Imagine, someone creates a vanity page about himself and uploads a logo of his favorite football team to be used in the article. Your bot will simply tag the image with a 'rationale' that will the problem from human eyees.

939:

I am not talking about functions 1-6 only function #7 which itself seems to be multi-functioned as state above. Or are you saying that the addition of only the article title has been removed from the bot function? and that it is now limited to only adding entire

352:

occasionally) adds a rationale for a use that does not apply. This occurs when a logo is only used in one article, and Polbot believes that the article is an article on the organization represented by the logo, but the article is actually about something else.

2947:

things being tagged, and deleted, and the only way to fully cover them would be to run this bot without category restrictions. Why go through all the work of adding category restriction (that won't restrict the bot effectively anyway) only to run it

2676:

been tagged as needing to be fixed? The impetus behind this suggestion seems to be that Polbot should never "save" an image from deletion if there's a chance, however slight, that the rationale would be incorrect. But this seems to misunderstand the

2329:

I'm willing to check the bot's edits. As Carcharoth says, it would be far quicker to check and approve the bot's edits -- and fix the very few incorrect rationales -- than manually add tons of logo rationales. I'm sure that editors from the new

2126:

This is not going to be approved until checks are put in place so that the bot is tagging the right images. Make sure it's a logo, and it's a logo for the page you're making a rationale about. Otherwise, we can close this discussion right now.

1521:

Without that edit, it is possible that the image would have been deleted for having an incomplete rationale. I think the rationale was already sufficient, but Polbot's edit at least made it more clear, more obvious, and more machine-readable.

582:

Images that have multiple FUR's for a single article, where the second FUR is missing the article name, the bot will repeatedly edit the first FUR adding the article multiple times. This has been posted on the Bot's talk page with an example.

2558:

What exactly is the cross-check you want? If it's not something fairly trivial (such as: the image is in Category:Company logos and the article using it is in one of the subcats of Category:Companies), it's not clear to me what it might be.

1149:

non-free images" is a terrible assumption of bad faith, and it's just not true. I have no interest in bypassing policy, and besides, we're not discussing all images, just logos, and just logos that are used correctly but lack a rationale. –

2473:

Granted that is his primary goal. But his method is to use the deletion of the image rather than the fixing of the missing rationale when the image IS being using properly. Polbot's approach is a much better way to accomplish the purpose.

1678:

must also be found in the description of the "Non-free use rationale" template. Only images that are using this template should be updated, others shouldn't be touched, and only images used on one single main space page should be edited.

1404:

I still believe that the Guidelines need to be rewritten to clearly state what the FUR source entry should look like and what information it should contain, but until that happens, I see no problem using the generic one use by this bot.

732:" in the "other_information" section. Polbot hasn't really been working on any of those older functions for many months now. You're right that I haven't yet put up the source code for this function. I'll go do that now. All the best, – 1295:

I would like to add that Polbot is writting some excellent rationales, my main question is regarding the source entry and if the entry being used by the bot is acceptable, noting that the guidelines are as clear as mud on this issue.

461:

If an image has no rationale, it will be automatically detected by a bot and tagged for delayed deletion. If it has invalid rationale, bots will be unable to detect it automatically and it may avoid deletion, that's what I mean.

433:

image pages that do not have a "Rationale" section already present. Pages that fail to use the word rationale usually do not have good rationales. They should be flagged for immediate attention by humans (that is something a bot

954:

asking for permission to run the function described above -- adding rationales to logos that lack them, under certain limited conditions. My botrun yesterday was multifunctioned, but the task under consideration here is not. –

741:

Thanks for the reply. It points out a major problem with terminology regarding the FUR. Just what is the definition of "source"? The guidelines are not much help in answering this question. The only thing I could find was:

883:

can still tag it as invalid. Unlike Betacommandbot, the human can give a specific reason, rather than a generic "10c, might be incomplete rationale or a missing one, but I can't tell because I'm a bot". Ironic, really.

2116:

I Agree. I see no reason why this should not be approved. I added the reference to BCBot as a case for approving this one, not to get into a discussion over BCBot behavior here, it is going on several other places.

2185:

article it's used on, and you aren't checking whether the use is relevant. By adding the rationale, you're guaranteeing that the rationale is relevant to the use, the use is valid, the image is tagged correctly. --

2025:

It seems likely that certain narrow classes of images, such as logos, have a fairly specific use which can be justified in a mechanical manner. What if this task involved manual approval of each proposed edit?

1271:

I see what you mean about lo-res. I could try to put in code than restricts that portion of code to ones where the images is below a certain size. Regarding the other concern, though, "something like that" could

410:

Having two rationales on one image description page is misleading, how should we decide which one should be used? Also, people may correct only one of the rationales, increasing discrepancies beween them even

2381:

across a page tagged for deletion, and it should not undo that tag on the basis of a bot-generated rationale. Before this moves on, I'd like to see the code, so I can be sure of what checks are in place. --

589:

The bot generates a generic source statement in an attempt to bypass the need for a valid source statement. This maybe something that needs to be discussed elsewhere as the issue is not very clear in the

3165:

Oh, I see what you mean. I think it would be irresponsible for Polbot to "revert herself", if reverting means (in 99% of cases) removing a valid rationale from an image, bringing into non-compliance. –

2524:

BCBot does not tag valid rationales. and BCBot does not have permission for image removal. BCBot does do a cross check prior to tagging. either implement a crosscheck or this task will not be approved.

1803:

you can prove the page the image is actually a organization/corporation. (it would need to crosscheck the use with a proven list of such pages IE limited categories). please implement this cross check.

1108:

Carcharoth, you miss-understand what I am saying. the category check would not be with the image but to see if the page where the image is used is in the Corporation (or what ever we name it) category.

2087:

One BCBot's edit rate is very very low. .000833333% is an error rate that is hard to beat. As for the requirement of a cross-check, its the only method of ensuring that the rationales are appropriate.

3048:

The question whether to keep a logo should be done by a human. Equally, the decision to delete a logo should be made by a human. At the moment, with the volume being deleted, I doubt all the logos

717:

source is the organization itself, not any particular website. I personally feel that "intellectual property owned by the organization represented" is a valid source. If consensus is that this is

1084:

and the like? If that tag is being used on album labels, that is an NFCC#10a problem, not an NFCC#10c problem. I suggest you write a bot to find the mistagged album covers and retag them with

905:

The function summary for Polbot function #7 does not seem to be accurate at least based on its past edits. It appears to have multiple functions dependant upon the state of the image file.

861:

I disagree. The bot has only made one error in this, out of hundreds done, and that error only changed an image from not having a valid rationale, to still not having a valid rationale. –

829:

may also be a few cases where the copyright holder is different from the source. Sometimes the creative source (which may still need to be credited) sells the copyright to another entity.

2721:(No offense meant; I think your suggestions are good-faith attempts at compromise, to try to get things moving. I just don't think these are good reasons to reject the bot's operation. – 2641:

Also, ST47 stated "It would also be trivial to check for the name of that article on the logo's description page, to make sure that the logo is related to the article it is used on." But

1992:

it can be done, but you will need to do some work on the categorization side. and a sanity check is always a good thing. If I had more free time I could get this operating in 2-3 months.

1345:"If the image is used improperly, then no rationale will save it. But it should be deleted for being used inappropriately, not for missing a rationale, if the use is the real problem." 452:

The bot doesn't create the problem, and it doesn't hide it either. The problem with the use is that it fails NFCC#8, and bringing the image in line with NFCC#10 doesn't change that. –

2537:

necessary to fix the rationale and remove the tag. Polbot's rationales are over 95% accurate greatly reducing the work of creating valid rationales a much better approach in my book.

3271: 1276:

be written for every image. In the case of logos, the logo represents the entity that holds the intellectual property -- the whole purpose of the image is state who the source is. –

1934:

where a bot can do that. The urgency is not "that βcommandbot is about to go on a rampage" or anything like that. The urgency is that the Foundation requires rationales, and soon.

2449:- I've highlighted this because this is a common misunderstanding. Betacommand's tagging is intended to get images in compliance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Licensing Policy, 1950:

Even if it were possible, Polbot's perceived false-positive rate is under 1%, which is well under the rate of some of her other functions (which were approved without hesitation).

271:

are "rationaleable" -- that is to say, with a good rationale there's no reason to delete the image. Certainly it's better to add a rationale and save the image in these cases. –

285:

more important -- perhaps even urgent -- that valid rationales be added to images. For the small number that can be added by a bot, I think it would be advantageous to do so. –

2837:

Quadell, why not compromise on this? Try and do a category crosscheck, and gradually expand the crosscheck if it works? Or is it technically difficult to do such a crosscheck?

1506:

needed? The page had a link to the article in the "Purpose" field. Had Polbot not made this edit, was this image in any danger of being tagged by any of the FUR-checking bots?

3196:

allow a short trial run, and from there establish the error rate? If the error rate is low, around 1% for example, then I don't think an automatic revert should be necessary.

244: 1587:

docs does it *require* the use of the article field if the template is used? I don't see it. (I realize this is tangential since the bot won't be doing exactly this, yet.)

1966:

Logos don't have to be for "recognized organizations". An individual (e.g. Trent Reznor) can have a logo, a concept can have a logo, etc. Logos are used to illustrate the

3019:

In some cases, a category cross-check (per Beta) isn't unreasonable, but I don't think it can be done automatically except in some limited cases. The non-free images in

1944:

Nothing in the category structure, infoboxes, text parsing, etc., can ever "prove" that an article is on a "recognized organization", as any bot-operators can tell you.

585:

This has been noted as having been fixed some time after this post was first started, so this is probably a non issue at this time, except for the need to test the fix.

1937:

I'd like to respond more directly to βcommand's concern about making sure the article is about a "recognized organization". This is a bad idea, and I'll tell you why.

1443:

you can prove the page the image is actually a organization/corporation. (it would need to crosscheck the use with a proven list of such pages IE limited categories).

2672:

It was also suggested above that the bot skip images tagged as having incomplete rationales. This seems counter-intuitive to me. Should this bot only fix images that

3023:

are nice examples. As far as I'm concerned, a two-step process is great, though it should stay in the "unchecked bot rationale" category for a bit more than a week.

1422:

You have my word. If this bot performs without too many problems, I may later request approval to run something similar for CD covers, etc. But either way, I will

539: 2256:

I'm really only good with Perl. I don't know enough JavaScript to make that work. My request is still for a perl app that adds rationales, as specified above, to

1900:

The argument that this bot is needed to save images from being deleted sounds like a muddy way of saying "let's tag all these logos with these tags so those that

151: 2960:, the only way a BAG member can be removed is by "consensus of existing members". Unlike ArbCom, Mediation, and any other group, BAG operates by consensus of 2063:

proper FURs while creating a standarized form for this type of image. It turns the job into a two step process, but should resolve all concerns about errors.

996:

because they can programmatically evaluate the absence of a link or name on the image pages as an "invalid rationale" (which is quite correct). This allows

511:

equate to a copyright violation. It merely equates to our losing, in that particular case, a double-check we have to make sure images are used correctly.

2732:

and other editors to check and improve (and remove the tag) or note a false-positive and delete while informing Polbot's programmer of the false-positive?

3133:

I don't think the bot reverting itself is a useful feature. The bot could be removing a valid rationale from an image, causing the image to be deleted. –

3109:

about companies need logos. It looks like advertising until a more substantial article appears. Having logos for Joe Bloggs pizza parlour is embarassing.

1974:

can be almost anything. Limiting its scope to "recognized organizations", even if possible, would prevent valid images from being given valid rationales.

926:

As I said above, "That botrun also performed other functions, but I'm only addressing logo rationales here." The function summary for function #7 is the

2808:

that the logo represents (company, band, individual, concept, city, etc.), and there is no way a category can determine whether the article is about a

2903:

Carcharoth, the trouble with adding cat cross checks is that the bot will have the exact same effect either way. Consider: if I first run it only for

1389:

It creates a FUR that makes the image fairly well protected from other bots that have as their primary goal the deletion of images with invalid FUR's.

1366:

From my side this bot correctly patched up over four dozen images that I was looking to have to update. It served a necessary administrative purpose

2968:

the community. The community's support doesn't mean anything; the other opinion that matters is those of the existing in-group. BAG is broken. –

251:. I've learned an important lesson, and I'd like for this discussion to focus on the merits or problems with this proposed bot, going forward. – 21: 3034:

This bot should not be an attempt to save all logos. the ability to confirm all logos needs human judgment for some cases that are not obvious,

1852:

I will agree with Quadell, the error rate is well within the acceptable range and as such the bot should be approved for the requested purpose.

1026:

All images used under the NFCC will have to be manually checked for NFCC#8 and NFCC#10b even if a bot-generated or templated rationale is used.

916:

I would like to see a more complete description of just what this bot will do especially since some of its edits have already been challenged.

622: 280:

In addition, Betacommand has recently stated that, due to a previous agreement (which I can't find onWiki), BetacommandBot will begin tagging

2940: 1315:

rationale is a good example - I'm reasonably sure that most Wikipedians would consider adding the rationale to be a significant improvement.

248: 1744: 1736: 2916: 1632: 1624: 680:

has removed the references to the other functions done by Polbot, does that mean that function #7 is replacing all the other functions?

1312: 2146:

the fact. You seem to be acting in an authoritarian manner, and ignoring the consensus here. That's not what BAG authority is for. –

728:

As for the previous Polbot functions, I didn't delete them, I just moved them to a subpage. That's linked as "Older functions are at

2681: 2076:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Image%3ALooney_Tunes_Back_in_Action_Game_Screenshot.jpg&diff=181611335&oldid=180882086

1921:

I'm back from my break. Having read the above (especially ST47's comments), I'd like to try to clear up a misconception. Polbot has

667:

does provide an example of a source for a image downloaded from the web. It does not make any comment regarding generic source info.

2957: 2746:

I intend to do this (or something equivalent, such as including a blank template so "what links here" can be used), if approved. –

1385:

As I see it, the bot, though not perfect, does provide several useful functions dependent on which side of the fence you stand on.

747: 619:

provides a field for source info but provides no instructions or link to any information as to how the source should be identified.

215:

article, and when that article appears to be about the organization represented by the logo, I believe that a rationale similar to

1636: 2042:

like to spend time trawling through categories with thousands of images to see which ones can be saved. Oops, I meant "deleted".

1581: 815:

You seem to be using the term "source" to be the copyright holder. The guidelines need to be cleaned up to address this issue

686:

has provide a link to the source for Polbot, but unfortunately that links to a page that has nothing to do with this function.

613: 558: 321: 2860:

Let me rephrase that. Betacommand, would you be happy to work with Quadell to help him get Polbot to do category crosschecks?

2102:

I'd like it if we discussed BCBot elsewhere. I just want this bot approved. Can we please get this moved forward? It's been a

535: 2936: 2908: 2654: 2630:

tag is used (correctly) on company logos, city seals, personal logos, idea logos, etc. Basically, a logo can be a logo for a

2059: 88: 542:

created in response, are going to change the bot function? Do you envisage having to substantially rewrite the bot program?

2203:

The proof would be in the trial run. So why not approve it on a trial basis only to see just what the reality actually is?

267:

of these don't have valid rationales because the image's use is flat-out invalid, and no valid rationale is possible. But

2431:

Betacommand isn't trying to delete all the images, he's trying to make sure we comply with United States copyright laws.

1008:. Now, if this method of detecting 10c-invalid rationales were removed, then Betacommand and others would have to find a 674:

It would appear that work needs to be done on the guidelines regarding what is required as the source of uploaded images.

643: 633: 3176:

self reversion, as I also think that blind addition of rationales is irresponsible, and is against our non-free policy.

1016:) can also be detected programmatically, but the correctness of the tags can only be evaluated by humans. Similarly for 219: 158: 83: 2347:

My problem with that is that the bot is proposing removal of the deletion template before the rationale is checked. --

879:

So should Betacommandbot be the only entity that is allowed to tag invalid rationales? If the rationale is invalid, a

1904:

be deleted are harder to find." Auto-generated tagging defeats the whole purpose of the FUR in the first place, IMO.

664: 654: 357:.) This is rare, but unavoidable. To deal with these cases, Polbot adds "other_information" to the rationale stating 263:

New images without rationales are routinely tagged (by BetacommandBot and others) as deletable, in line with policy.

2932: 2912: 2646: 2598: 2388: 2354: 2276: 2245: 2192: 2163: 2134: 1885: 1698:

If the bot is only adding rationales to logos, and is using a template, why not just use a template transclusion?

2579:

OK, that doesn't seem unreasonable, though Quadell might find it too much work retooling for each logo category.

1728:

But it is using a template, by which I mean all the text it adds is identical except for the name of the article.

870:

No, it changed from having an invalid rationale that BetacommandBot would tag, to having one that it would not. —

118: 1978:

I think this concern was raised in good faith, but I don't think it can be used to improve Polbot's function. I

653:"(a) Attribution of the source of the material and, if different from the source, of the copyright holder. See: 211:

specific kind of image use. When an image is tagged as a non-free logo, and when that image is only used in a

2309:"This is not going to be approved until checks are put in place so that the bot is tagging the right images." 1088: 168: 2804:

For what category? As I stated above, multiple times, a logo can be a valid image to use on the page of any

729: 103: 3067:

Carcharoth, Ive got a few ideas that you might be interested in, but I just need more time to finish them.

1479:

Finally, if the experiment goes well for logos you may consider film posters, book covers, CD covers, etc.

1392:

It provides a standardize FUR that is well worded and can be easily edited to fix any miss representations.

3242: 3205: 3190: 3180: 3170: 3160: 3148: 3137: 3128: 3118: 3085: 3071: 3062: 3043: 3029: 3014: 2996: 2986: 2972: 2928: 2924: 2892: 2878: 2869: 2855: 2846: 2832: 2816: 2799: 2789: 2775: 2765: 2750: 2741: 2725: 2716: 2703: 2666: 2604: 2585: 2574: 2565: 2541: 2529: 2519: 2509: 2491: 2478: 2466: 2439: 2425: 2406: 2394: 2375: 2360: 2342: 2320: 2293: 2282: 2264: 2251: 2232: 2207: 2198: 2179: 2169: 2150: 2140: 2121: 2110: 2091: 2081: 2067: 2051: 2032: 2012: 1996: 1986: 1913: 1891: 1870: 1856: 1846: 1808: 1784: 1775: 1754: 1723: 1704: 1692: 1661: 1643: 1593: 1552: 1534: 1512: 1493: 1447: 1430: 1409: 1380: 1360: 1336: 1324: 1300: 1280: 1266: 1230: 1153: 1127: 1113: 1103: 1078: 1069: 1052: 1038: 992:

You see, at the moment, Betacommand (and others) can use bots or scripts to tag images for deletion under

987: 969: 959: 944: 934: 920: 893: 874: 865: 856: 838: 819: 736: 690: 566: 551: 520: 486: 472: 456: 446: 425: 400: 389: 371: 343: 303: 289: 275: 255: 3239: 3177: 3145: 3125: 3068: 3040: 3035: 3020: 3002: 2983: 2875: 2852: 2829: 2796: 2571: 2526: 2506: 2088: 1993: 1822:. Besides, even if it could, the one error that has so far been found has been a case where the article 1805: 1489: 1444: 1426:

run this bot function for anything other than logos without going through the approval process again. –

1110: 1066: 984: 601: 516: 2658: 2650: 1253: 1249: 1245: 2591:

on the logo's description page, to make sure that the logo is related to the article it is used on. --

1826:

on an organization -- it just wasn't on the organization represented by the image. So even if I could

3114: 3081: 3058: 3010: 2888: 2865: 2842: 2737: 2462: 2371: 2316: 2047: 2008: 1842:

that it may add a few incorrect tags? If this bot doesn't get approved soon, there'll be no point. –

1657: 1356: 1123: 1099: 1048: 1034: 889: 834: 442: 225:

can be included by a bot, with a high degree of accuracy. A good example of what this bot will do is

2634:, not just a company or whatever. And there is no check to make sure a wikipedia article is about a 3024: 2711: 2580: 2560: 2401: 2288: 2227: 2027: 1770: 1749: 1699: 1588: 1507: 1485: 1351:

This is what I'm getting at with my bit about about deletions under 10c for incomplete rationales.

871: 853: 512: 2642: 3124:

Im waiting for a response about the bot reverting itself. and a full response from the operator.

2904: 2826: 2058:

Maybe the following simple change would help, as already mentioned above. Create a new Category:

1713: 98: 2331: 93: 1834:

community just needs to decide -- is this bot, with its <1% error rate, good enough? Is the

1763: 1686: 1467: 1225: 240: 3229: 1574: 1570: 1021: 1017: 1013: 993: 17: 3234: 3201: 1909: 1866: 1376: 1320: 1262: 722: 547: 78: 2919:, etc. And it obviously won't cover most valid logos. So then what? I can run it again for 3110: 3077: 3054: 3006: 2920: 2907:

and subcats, what will that accomplish? It won't limit it to companies -- subcats include

2884: 2883:

ROTFL! Bot owners with language difficulties. As a nonprogrammer, I find that very funny.

2861: 2838: 2733: 2458: 2367: 2312: 2043: 2004: 1653: 1352: 1119: 1095: 1044: 1030: 885: 830: 632:"For the full non-free content use guideline (including this policy and its criteria) see 438: 2226:

Question: would it be possible or reasonable for the script to run with manual approval?

1878:

being exploited or reading erroneous information or it should not be permitted to run. --

3144:

and when you revert yourself just remove what ever you added between the HTML comments.

1982:

think it can be used as a delaying tactic, but I hope it's not used for this purpose. –

807:

Source: Scanned from public record #5253 on file with Anytown, Somestate public surveyor

2595: 2385: 2351: 2335: 2273: 2242: 2189: 2160: 2131: 1882: 1043:

Oh, and Betacommand, can you provide a list of those 100 images you looked at? Thanks.

2695:

that the image be fixed, and conceding that the image must be deleted if no one does.

777: 3265: 2691:

image deletion unless someone steps in and interferes. Instead, it should be seen as

2624: 912:

To add an entire FUR which apparently varries based on a number of different factors.

1956:

The only false-positive found thus far was a logo for an organization that was used

3167: 3157: 3142:

So just rap what ever you tag in HTML comments

3134: 2969: 2813: 2786: 2747: 2722: 2700: 2483:

The problem is whether or not an automated process can write a fair use rationale.

2261: 2176: 2147: 2107: 1983: 1843: 1781: 1720: 1681: 1531: 1427: 1333: 1277: 1150: 956: 931: 862: 733: 683: 677: 625:

make no reference to the need for any source information but include the following:

563: 483: 453: 397: 382: 368: 367:

benefit of adding correct rationales to 99% of images outweighs this small cost. –

340: 300: 286: 272: 252: 130: 46: 850:

and when that article appears to be about the organization represented by the logo

317:

rationale already or not. According to her current code, if a logo does not use a

2943:), etc., etc. Eventually we'll be back to where we are right now, with logos for 1176:

rationales. Those rationales added to a few radio (and one TV) logos yesterday.

3197: 2485: 2433: 1905: 1862: 1372: 1316: 1258: 543: 463: 416: 58: 1818:

that the page is actually an organization. Very few things about images can be

3187: 2993: 2772: 2762: 2538: 2516: 2475: 2422: 2204: 2118: 2078: 2064: 1853: 1838:

that it will save thousands of otherwise-valid images from deletion worth the

1814:(I'm on Wikibreak until Jan 2, but I'm able to briefly log on.) The bot can't 1759:

OK, seeing no response: I'm basically asking in a roundabout way, why not use

1640: 1549: 1406: 1297: 966: 941: 917: 816: 687: 2592: 2382: 2348: 2270: 2239: 2186: 2157: 2128: 1879: 2649:, but outside of the rationale the name of the company is never mentioned. 1029:

tick the boxes for the NFCC, but that is best left until after March 2008.

1416: 852:

cannot be evaluated programmatically. This should be manually attended. —

295:

occasional errors, the average quality and accuracy of her rationales is

2657:. Etc, etc. Besides this, such a check would not fix any problems: the 1466:

tag to grab onto. You may also want to consider using a template like

1074:

Those categories are generated from the copyright tags, aren't they?

477:

I see what you mean. But I think that's a good thing. If an image is

1144:. But saying "any bot wrtten rationales are crap" is clearly false; 2620:

Regarding the above: one problem is, as I've said twice above, the

407:

I'm afraid that two aforementioned 'limitations' are unacceptable:

1960:. This requested (impossible) check would not have prevented this. 3228:

Marking request as expired as it was either never transcluded to

1797:(repost comment) I would have no problem with this specific task 1012:

way of detecting invalid images. The absence of a copyright tag (

1830:

this, it wouldn't reduce the error rate from 0.5% down to 0.0%.

802:

If you got the image from an offline source, you should specify:

721:

valid, I could change it to say "intellectual property owned by

3250:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

3076:

OK. Drop me a note when you do. Sorry, back to the discussion.

2964:, not by consensus of the community, though it has real power 574:

Issues related to this bot and this specific set or functions:

379:

I find the task very useful. Can you estimate the error rate?

313:

Polbot is obviously unable to determine whether a logo has a

2500:

Like I have said, I would like to see this bot operational,

1627:

If the article field is used then the article name replaces

1415: 1648:

Just to be even clearer here, it is not required to have a

1343:

I had to bring this out from the bit above. Quadell said:

909:

To add the article link entry to the FUR if it is missing.

331:

have a valid rationale. This can lead to Polbot adding a

2952:

category restrictions in order to cover all bases later?

1861:

Agree, bot should be approved and error rate monitored.

751:

download an image from the web, you should give the URL:

3039:

sit in yet another backlog that rarely gets worked on.

2075: 1780:

To be honest, I like my way of putting it better. :) –

1731: 1729: 1503: 1220: 1217: 1214: 1211: 1208: 1205: 1202: 1199: 1196: 1193: 1190: 1187: 1184: 1181: 1178: 1145: 354: 336: 226: 113: 108: 73: 607:

which would imply that a source statement is required.

396:

second rationale, which I don't consider an error. –

3256:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

2785:

I believe all concerns have been addressed above. –

2669:, even though that seal does not represent the NSS. 1000:

numbers of images to be quickly tagged for deletion

42:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

1530:what I'm requesting permission for at this RFBA. – 778:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4280841.stm

3272:Expired Knowledge (XXG) bot requests for approval 1633:Category:Non-free images lacking article backlink 1625:Category:Non-free images lacking article backlink 182:one-time run, or in small batches until complete 2238:can be sure of the accuracy of the rationale. -- 1437:I would have no problem with this specific task 1371:a friendly and helpful act or two. Good work Q. 36:The following discussion is an archived debate. 3001:Quadell, how would Polbot handle the images in 2287:What issues haven't been addressed by Quadell? 1958:on the article about a different organization 335:rationale to an image that already had one. ( 327:template (or its synonyms), it is assumed to 8: 1637:Category:Non-free images with valid backlink 2923:and subcates (including such non-cities as 2453:US copyright laws. The Licensing Policy is 1006:rationale as opposed to no rationale at all 299:higher than the Knowledge (XXG) average. – 3154:I don't understand your previous sentence. 2003:That would be after 23 March 2008, right? 1709:It's not using a template, other than the 1639:. This is why I call it a required field. 930:thing I'm requesting permission to run. – 746:Images must include source details and a 623:Knowledge (XXG):Non-free content criteria 2851:its very simple to do cat cross checks. 2795:have you enabled a category crosscheck? 1172:I can cite 15 images where Polbot added 3232:or has had no attention for some time. 2060:Category:Images with auto created FUR's 1456:Isn't a product or brand logo the same? 2334:project would be willing to help too. 229:. Benefits and limitations are below. 177:(e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run) 3143:{{rationale}} 2941:Category:Leaders of political parties 2710:expanded. I was just trying to help. 1954:It would not prevent false-positives. 1240:The above cited added rationales are 665:Knowledge (XXG):Citing sources#Images 655:Knowledge (XXG):Citing sources#Images 597:There is a template currently in use 138:Automatic, but with some supervision 7: 2958:Knowledge (XXG):Bots/Approvals group 2687:tag. This tag should not be seen as 2269:Not until you address the issues. -- 1964:It will create many false-negatives. 1925:to do with βcommandbot. Polbot will 1617:"Non-free / fair use media rationale 534:Hi Quadell, could I ask what if the 2917:Category:Lists of awards by company 2260:. Can I have a trial run please? – 1502:Just for my own clarification, was 559:2007 Wikimedia licensing resolution 1719:template, which is transcluded. – 310:Limitations of this bot function: 28: 507:Actually, a wrong rationale does 44:The result of the discussion was 3220: 700:source is the GE company -- the 644:Knowledge (XXG):Non-free content 634:Knowledge (XXG):Non-free content 45: 557:No, I think it'll be fine. The 260:Benefits of this bot function: 136:Automatic or Manually Assisted: 2937:Category:Political party songs 2909:Category:Books about companies 2655:International Data Corporation 1631:and the article is moved from 1: 3243:12:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC) 3206:19:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC) 1914:00:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC) 1892:23:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC) 1871:19:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC) 1857:19:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC) 1847:13:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC) 1809:01:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC) 1785:04:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC) 1776:00:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC) 1755:03:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC) 1724:02:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC) 1705:02:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC) 1693:17:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC) 1662:09:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC) 1644:04:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC) 1594:02:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC) 1553:17:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC) 1535:12:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC) 1513:07:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC) 1494:02:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC) 1448:00:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC) 1431:22:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC) 1410:22:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC) 1381:20:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC) 1361:18:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC) 1337:19:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC) 1325:17:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC) 1301:17:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC) 1281:22:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC) 1267:21:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC) 1231:18:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC) 1154:17:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC) 1128:18:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC) 1114:18:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC) 1104:18:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC) 1070:18:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC) 1053:17:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC) 1039:17:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC) 988:17:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC) 970:18:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC) 960:17:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC) 945:17:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC) 935:17:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC) 921:17:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC) 894:20:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC) 875:19:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC) 866:17:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC) 857:17:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC) 839:20:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC) 820:18:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC) 737:17:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC) 691:16:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC) 567:17:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC) 552:16:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC) 521:02:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC) 487:17:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC) 473:17:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC) 457:16:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC) 447:16:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC) 426:16:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC) 401:16:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC) 390:15:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC) 372:15:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC) 344:15:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC) 304:15:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC) 290:15:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC) 276:15:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC) 256:15:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC) 3191:20:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC) 3181:20:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC) 3171:19:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC) 3161:19:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC) 3149:19:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC) 3138:19:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC) 3129:16:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC) 3119:11:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC) 3086:11:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC) 3072:03:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC) 3063:21:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC) 3044:19:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC) 3030:19:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC) 3015:18:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC) 2997:16:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC) 2987:01:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC) 2973:00:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC) 2893:21:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC) 2879:19:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC) 2870:19:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC) 2856:18:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC) 2847:18:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC) 2833:16:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC) 2817:13:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC) 2800:04:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC) 2570:that is what Im asking for. 709:source be credited, not the 2825:one good starting point is 2790:22:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC) 2776:21:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC) 2766:20:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC) 2751:13:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC) 2742:19:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC) 2726:13:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC) 2717:16:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC) 2704:15:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC) 2605:12:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC) 2586:05:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC) 2575:05:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC) 2566:05:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC) 2542:05:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC) 2530:03:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC) 2520:03:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC) 2510:03:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC) 2492:03:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC) 2479:03:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC) 2467:14:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC) 2440:03:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC) 2426:03:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC) 2407:02:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC) 2395:02:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC) 2376:01:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC) 2361:23:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC) 2343:14:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC) 2321:11:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC) 2294:01:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC) 2283:22:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 2265:22:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 2252:21:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 2233:21:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 2208:20:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 2199:20:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 2180:20:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 2170:20:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 2151:20:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 2141:19:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 2122:19:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 2111:19:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 2092:17:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 2082:16:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 2068:02:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 2052:03:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC) 2033:03:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC) 2013:03:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC) 1997:16:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC) 1987:16:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC) 1745:Non-free use rationale logo 1737:Non-free use rationale logo 1020:(relevance to article) and 3288: 2933:Category:Political parties 2913:Category:People by company 2647:Apple Developer Connection 1623:and the image is added to 144:Perl, using Perlwikipedia 1970:they represent, but that 1733:This could be reduced to 646:does state the following: 220:Commercial logo rationale 159:Commercial logo rationale 3253:Please do not modify it. 2682:Di-no fair use rationale 2457:than US copyright laws. 1942:It's clearly impossible. 1526:this particular edit is 824:Source has always meant 142:Programming Language(s): 39:Please do not modify it. 2661:image description page 1257:to apply to all cases. 772:Source: Downloaded from 2929:Category:Urban warfare 2925:Category:City founders 2667:National Space Society 1931:complimentary function 1582:Non-free use rationale 1420: 614:non-free use rationale 322:non-free use rationale 196:Already has a bot flag 3036:Organic certification 3021:Organic certification 3003:Organic certification 1419: 562:before, actually.) – 536:foundation resolution 348:Polbot occasionally ( 22:Requests for approval 3230:Knowledge (XXG):BRFA 2874:I dont speak pearl. 1575:Knowledge (XXG):NFCC 1571:Knowledge (XXG):FURG 1002:even if there is an 186:Edit rate requested: 18:Knowledge (XXG):Bots 152:image use rationale 2905:Category:Companies 2827:Category:Companies 2659:Image:Abc seal.gif 2651:Image:IDC logo.png 1629:NEEDS ARTICLE NAME 1621:NEEDS ARTICLE NAME 1421: 1254:Image:2007wwwv.JPG 1250:Image:2007wqmz.JPG 1246:Image:044acdb0.jpg 3104:New section break 2603: 2393: 2359: 2281: 2250: 2197: 2168: 2139: 1948:It's unnecessary. 1890: 1468:Template:logo fur 1223: 208:Function Details: 148:Function Summary: 3279: 3255: 3237: 3226:Request Expired. 3224: 3223: 2686: 2680: 2629: 2623: 2601: 2490: 2488: 2438: 2436: 2391: 2357: 2340: 2279: 2248: 2195: 2166: 2137: 1888: 1768: 1762: 1748: 1747:|Atreyu (band)}} 1740: 1718: 1712: 1689: 1684: 1586: 1580: 1244:always correct: 1228: 1177: 1142:most of the time 1093: 1087: 1083: 1077: 723:General Electric 713:source. And the 618: 612: 606: 600: 469: 422: 385: 359:"This rationale 326: 320: 224: 218: 163: 157: 49: 41: 3287: 3286: 3282: 3281: 3280: 3278: 3277: 3276: 3262: 3261: 3260: 3251: 3235: 3221: 3106: 2921:Category:Cities 2783: 2684: 2678: 2653:never mentions 2627: 2621: 2486: 2484: 2434: 2432: 2336: 2332:Task of the day 2100: 1766: 1760: 1742: 1734: 1716: 1710: 1691: 1687: 1682: 1584: 1578: 1226: 1118:Oh, right. OK. 1091: 1085: 1081: 1075: 616: 610: 604: 598: 540:proposed policy 465: 418: 383: 324: 318: 235: 222: 216: 169:images of logos 161: 155: 124: 63: 51:Request Expired 37: 26: 25: 24: 12: 11: 5: 3285: 3283: 3275: 3274: 3264: 3263: 3259: 3258: 3246: 3245: 3241: 3218: 3217: 3216: 3215: 3214: 3213: 3212: 3211: 3210: 3209: 3208: 3173: 3163: 3105: 3102: 3101: 3100: 3099: 3098: 3097: 3096: 3095: 3094: 3093: 3092: 3091: 3090: 3089: 3088: 2989: 2979: 2978: 2977: 2976: 2975: 2953: 2901: 2900: 2899: 2898: 2897: 2896: 2895: 2822: 2821: 2820: 2819: 2782: 2779: 2758: 2757: 2756: 2755: 2754: 2753: 2729: 2618: 2617: 2616: 2615: 2614: 2613: 2612: 2611: 2610: 2609: 2608: 2607: 2551: 2550: 2549: 2548: 2547: 2546: 2545: 2544: 2522: 2502:if and only if 2498: 2497: 2496: 2495: 2494: 2471: 2470: 2469: 2418: 2417: 2416: 2415: 2414: 2413: 2412: 2411: 2410: 2409: 2345: 2324: 2323: 2305: 2304: 2303: 2302: 2301: 2300: 2299: 2298: 2297: 2296: 2223: 2222: 2221: 2220: 2219: 2218: 2217: 2216: 2215: 2214: 2213: 2212: 2211: 2210: 2099: 2096: 2095: 2094: 2071: 2070: 2055: 2054: 2038: 2037: 2036: 2035: 2020: 2019: 2018: 2017: 2016: 2015: 1976: 1975: 1961: 1951: 1945: 1919: 1918: 1917: 1916: 1895: 1894: 1874: 1873: 1859: 1812: 1811: 1800:if and only if 1794: 1793: 1792: 1791: 1790: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1757: 1679: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1666: 1665: 1664: 1603: 1602: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1560: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1555: 1540: 1539: 1538: 1537: 1516: 1515: 1499: 1498: 1497: 1496: 1474: 1473: 1472: 1471: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1457: 1451: 1450: 1440:if and only if 1434: 1433: 1398: 1397: 1393: 1390: 1364: 1363: 1340: 1339: 1328: 1327: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1305: 1304: 1303: 1292: 1291: 1290: 1289: 1288: 1287: 1286: 1285: 1284: 1283: 1234: 1233: 1159: 1158: 1157: 1156: 1138: 1137: 1136: 1135: 1134: 1133: 1132: 1131: 1130: 1089:non-free cover 1041: 979: 978: 977: 976: 975: 974: 973: 972: 965:clarification 914: 913: 910: 903: 902: 901: 900: 899: 898: 897: 896: 847: 846: 845: 844: 843: 842: 841: 813: 812: 811: 810: 809: 792: 791: 790: 789: 788: 787: 786: 785: 784: 783: 782: 781: 760: 759: 758: 757: 756: 755: 754: 753: 726: 681: 675: 672: 671: 670: 669: 668: 661: 660: 659: 658: 648: 647: 640: 639: 638: 637: 627: 626: 620: 608: 592: 591: 587: 577: 576: 570: 569: 532: 531: 530: 529: 528: 527: 526: 525: 524: 523: 496: 495: 494: 493: 492: 491: 490: 489: 449: 429: 428: 412: 404: 403: 377: 376: 375: 374: 346: 308: 307: 306: 292: 278: 258: 234: 231: 174:Edit period(s) 123: 122: 116: 111: 106: 101: 96: 91: 86: 81: 76: 74:Approved BRFAs 71: 64: 62: 56: 55: 54: 32: 30: 27: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3284: 3273: 3270: 3269: 3267: 3257: 3254: 3248: 3247: 3244: 3240: 3238: 3233: 3231: 3227: 3219: 3207: 3203: 3199: 3194: 3193: 3192: 3189: 3184: 3183: 3182: 3179: 3174: 3172: 3169: 3164: 3162: 3159: 3155: 3152: 3151: 3150: 3147: 3141: 3140: 3139: 3136: 3132: 3131: 3130: 3127: 3123: 3122: 3121: 3120: 3116: 3112: 3103: 3087: 3083: 3079: 3075: 3074: 3073: 3070: 3066: 3065: 3064: 3060: 3056: 3051: 3047: 3046: 3045: 3042: 3037: 3033: 3032: 3031: 3028: 3027: 3022: 3018: 3017: 3016: 3012: 3008: 3004: 3000: 2999: 2998: 2995: 2990: 2988: 2985: 2980: 2974: 2971: 2967: 2963: 2959: 2954: 2951: 2946: 2942: 2938: 2935:and subcats ( 2934: 2930: 2926: 2922: 2918: 2914: 2910: 2906: 2902: 2894: 2890: 2886: 2882: 2881: 2880: 2877: 2873: 2872: 2871: 2867: 2863: 2859: 2858: 2857: 2854: 2850: 2849: 2848: 2844: 2840: 2836: 2835: 2834: 2831: 2828: 2824: 2823: 2818: 2815: 2811: 2807: 2803: 2802: 2801: 2798: 2794: 2793: 2792: 2791: 2788: 2781:Section break 2780: 2778: 2777: 2774: 2768: 2767: 2764: 2752: 2749: 2745: 2744: 2743: 2739: 2735: 2730: 2727: 2724: 2720: 2719: 2718: 2715: 2714: 2708: 2707: 2706: 2705: 2702: 2696: 2694: 2690: 2683: 2675: 2670: 2668: 2664: 2660: 2656: 2652: 2648: 2644: 2643:Image:ADC.gif 2639: 2637: 2633: 2626: 2606: 2600: 2597: 2594: 2589: 2588: 2587: 2584: 2583: 2578: 2577: 2576: 2573: 2569: 2568: 2567: 2564: 2563: 2557: 2556: 2555: 2554: 2553: 2552: 2543: 2540: 2535: 2534: 2533: 2532: 2531: 2528: 2523: 2521: 2518: 2513: 2512: 2511: 2508: 2503: 2499: 2493: 2489: 2482: 2481: 2480: 2477: 2472: 2468: 2464: 2460: 2456: 2452: 2448: 2445: 2444: 2443: 2442: 2441: 2437: 2430: 2429: 2428: 2427: 2424: 2408: 2405: 2404: 2398: 2397: 2396: 2390: 2387: 2384: 2379: 2378: 2377: 2373: 2369: 2364: 2363: 2362: 2356: 2353: 2350: 2346: 2344: 2341: 2339: 2333: 2328: 2327: 2326: 2325: 2322: 2318: 2314: 2310: 2307: 2306: 2295: 2292: 2291: 2286: 2285: 2284: 2278: 2275: 2272: 2268: 2267: 2266: 2263: 2259: 2255: 2254: 2253: 2247: 2244: 2241: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2231: 2230: 2225: 2224: 2209: 2206: 2202: 2201: 2200: 2194: 2191: 2188: 2183: 2182: 2181: 2178: 2173: 2172: 2171: 2165: 2162: 2159: 2154: 2153: 2152: 2149: 2144: 2143: 2142: 2136: 2133: 2130: 2125: 2124: 2123: 2120: 2115: 2114: 2113: 2112: 2109: 2105: 2097: 2093: 2090: 2086: 2085: 2084: 2083: 2080: 2077: 2069: 2066: 2061: 2057: 2056: 2053: 2049: 2045: 2040: 2039: 2034: 2031: 2030: 2024: 2023: 2022: 2021: 2014: 2010: 2006: 2002: 2001: 2000: 1999: 1998: 1995: 1991: 1990: 1989: 1988: 1985: 1981: 1973: 1969: 1965: 1962: 1959: 1955: 1952: 1949: 1946: 1943: 1940: 1939: 1938: 1935: 1932: 1928: 1924: 1915: 1911: 1907: 1903: 1899: 1898: 1897: 1896: 1893: 1887: 1884: 1881: 1876: 1875: 1872: 1868: 1864: 1860: 1858: 1855: 1851: 1850: 1849: 1848: 1845: 1841: 1837: 1831: 1829: 1825: 1821: 1817: 1810: 1807: 1802: 1801: 1796: 1795: 1786: 1783: 1779: 1778: 1777: 1774: 1773: 1765: 1758: 1756: 1753: 1752: 1746: 1738: 1732: 1730: 1727: 1726: 1725: 1722: 1715: 1708: 1707: 1706: 1703: 1702: 1697: 1696: 1695: 1694: 1690: 1685: 1663: 1659: 1655: 1651: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1642: 1638: 1634: 1630: 1626: 1622: 1618: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1607: 1606: 1605: 1604: 1595: 1592: 1591: 1583: 1576: 1572: 1568: 1567: 1566: 1565: 1564: 1563: 1562: 1561: 1554: 1551: 1546: 1545: 1544: 1543: 1542: 1541: 1536: 1533: 1529: 1525: 1520: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1514: 1511: 1510: 1505: 1501: 1500: 1495: 1491: 1487: 1482: 1478: 1477: 1476: 1475: 1469: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1455: 1454: 1453: 1452: 1449: 1446: 1442: 1441: 1436: 1435: 1432: 1429: 1425: 1418: 1414: 1413: 1412: 1411: 1408: 1402: 1394: 1391: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1383: 1382: 1378: 1374: 1369: 1362: 1358: 1354: 1350: 1346: 1342: 1341: 1338: 1335: 1330: 1329: 1326: 1322: 1318: 1314: 1310: 1309: 1302: 1299: 1294: 1293: 1282: 1279: 1275: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1264: 1260: 1255: 1251: 1247: 1243: 1239: 1236: 1235: 1232: 1229: 1222: 1219: 1216: 1213: 1210: 1207: 1204: 1201: 1198: 1195: 1192: 1189: 1186: 1183: 1180: 1175: 1171: 1170: 1169: 1168: 1167: 1166: 1165: 1164: 1163: 1162: 1161: 1160: 1155: 1152: 1147: 1143: 1139: 1129: 1125: 1121: 1117: 1116: 1115: 1112: 1107: 1106: 1105: 1101: 1097: 1090: 1080: 1079:non-free logo 1073: 1072: 1071: 1068: 1063: 1062: 1056: 1055: 1054: 1050: 1046: 1042: 1040: 1036: 1032: 1027: 1023: 1019: 1015: 1011: 1007: 1005: 999: 995: 991: 990: 989: 986: 981: 980: 971: 968: 963: 962: 961: 958: 953: 948: 947: 946: 943: 938: 937: 936: 933: 929: 925: 924: 923: 922: 919: 911: 908: 907: 906: 895: 891: 887: 882: 878: 877: 876: 873: 869: 868: 867: 864: 860: 859: 858: 855: 851: 848: 840: 836: 832: 827: 823: 822: 821: 818: 814: 808: 805: 804: 803: 800: 799: 798: 797: 796: 795: 794: 793: 780: 779: 775: 774: 773: 770: 769: 768: 767: 766: 765: 764: 763: 762: 761: 752: 749: 748:copyright tag 744: 743: 740: 739: 738: 735: 731: 727: 724: 720: 716: 712: 708: 703: 699: 694: 693: 692: 689: 685: 682: 679: 676: 673: 666: 663: 662: 656: 652: 651: 650: 649: 645: 642: 641: 635: 631: 630: 629: 628: 624: 621: 615: 609: 603: 596: 595: 594: 593: 588: 586: 581: 580: 579: 578: 575: 572: 571: 568: 565: 560: 556: 555: 554: 553: 549: 545: 541: 537: 522: 518: 514: 510: 506: 505: 504: 503: 502: 501: 500: 499: 498: 497: 488: 485: 480: 476: 475: 474: 471: 468: 460: 459: 458: 455: 450: 448: 444: 440: 436: 431: 430: 427: 424: 421: 413: 409: 408: 406: 405: 402: 399: 394: 393: 392: 391: 388: 387: 386: 373: 370: 365: 362: 356: 351: 347: 345: 342: 338: 334: 330: 323: 316: 312: 311: 309: 305: 302: 298: 293: 291: 288: 283: 279: 277: 274: 270: 266: 262: 261: 259: 257: 254: 250: 246: 242: 237: 236: 232: 230: 228: 221: 214: 209: 205: 203: 200: 197: 193: 191: 187: 183: 181: 178: 175: 171: 170: 167: 160: 153: 149: 145: 143: 139: 137: 133: 132: 128: 120: 117: 115: 112: 110: 107: 105: 102: 100: 97: 95: 92: 90: 87: 85: 82: 80: 77: 75: 72: 70: 66: 65: 60: 57: 52: 48: 43: 40: 34: 33: 31: 23: 19: 3252: 3249: 3225: 3153: 3107: 3049: 3025: 2965: 2961: 2949: 2944: 2809: 2805: 2784: 2769: 2759: 2712: 2697: 2692: 2688: 2673: 2671: 2662: 2640: 2635: 2631: 2619: 2581: 2561: 2501: 2454: 2450: 2446: 2419: 2402: 2337: 2308: 2289: 2257: 2228: 2175:mistakes. – 2103: 2101: 2072: 2028: 1979: 1977: 1971: 1967: 1963: 1957: 1953: 1947: 1941: 1936: 1930: 1926: 1922: 1920: 1901: 1839: 1835: 1832: 1827: 1823: 1819: 1815: 1813: 1799: 1798: 1771: 1750: 1700: 1676: 1649: 1628: 1620: 1616: 1589: 1527: 1523: 1508: 1480: 1439: 1438: 1423: 1403: 1399: 1384: 1367: 1365: 1349:Absolutlely! 1348: 1344: 1273: 1241: 1237: 1227:NeutralHomer 1173: 1141: 1060: 1059: 1025: 1009: 1003: 1001: 997: 951: 927: 915: 904: 880: 849: 825: 806: 801: 776: 771: 745: 718: 714: 710: 706: 701: 697: 684:User:Quadell 678:User:Quadell 602:di-no source 584: 573: 533: 508: 478: 466: 434: 419: 381: 380: 378: 360: 358: 349: 332: 328: 314: 296: 281: 268: 264: 212: 207: 206: 201: 198: 195: 194: 189: 185: 184: 179: 176: 173: 172: 165: 147: 146: 141: 140: 135: 134: 126: 125: 68: 50: 38: 35: 29: 2645:is used in 940:rationales? 730:older tasks 590:guidelines. 154:similar to 3111:Carcharoth 3078:Carcharoth 3055:Carcharoth 3007:Carcharoth 2885:Carcharoth 2862:Carcharoth 2839:Carcharoth 2734:Carcharoth 2459:Carcharoth 2368:Carcharoth 2313:Carcharoth 2258:logos only 2074:mess. see 2044:Carcharoth 2005:Carcharoth 1840:hypothesis 1654:Carcharoth 1353:Carcharoth 1120:Carcharoth 1096:Carcharoth 1045:Carcharoth 1031:Carcharoth 1004:incomplete 886:Carcharoth 831:Carcharoth 439:Carcharoth 233:Discussion 150:To add an 114:rights log 104:page moves 3026:Gimmetrow 2713:Gimmetrow 2693:promoting 2689:promoting 2582:Gimmetrow 2562:Gimmetrow 2403:Gimmetrow 2338:Bláthnaid 2290:Gimmetrow 2229:Gimmetrow 2029:Gimmetrow 1772:Gimmetrow 1751:Gimmetrow 1714:rationale 1701:Gimmetrow 1590:Gimmetrow 1569:Where in 1509:Gimmetrow 1504:this edit 1010:different 872:Random832 854:Random832 711:proximate 702:proximate 479:otherwise 127:Operator: 109:block log 3266:Category 2665:mention 2455:stricter 2106:wait. – 1764:Logo fur 1739:|ATRAN}} 1486:Wikidemo 1022:NFCC#10b 1014:NFCC#10a 994:NFCC#10c 715:ultimate 707:ultimate 698:ultimate 538:and the 513:Wikidemo 364:remove." 188:6 edits 84:contribs 20:‎ | 3236:Richard 3168:Quadell 3158:Quadell 3135:Quadell 2970:Quadell 2962:its own 2950:without 2931:), for 2814:Quadell 2787:Quadell 2748:Quadell 2723:Quadell 2701:Quadell 2674:haven't 2262:Quadell 2177:Quadell 2148:Quadell 2108:Quadell 1984:Quadell 1923:nothing 1844:Quadell 1782:Quadell 1721:Quadell 1615:header 1577:or the 1532:Quadell 1428:Quadell 1334:Quadell 1278:Quadell 1238:Comment 1174:correct 1151:Quadell 957:Quadell 932:Quadell 863:Quadell 734:Quadell 564:Quadell 484:Quadell 454:Quadell 398:Quadell 384:Snowolf 369:Quadell 355:Example 341:Quadell 337:Example 301:Quadell 287:Quadell 273:Quadell 253:Quadell 192:minute 131:Quadell 3198:Addhoc 2602:(st47) 2596:ʎʇɹnoɟ 2487:Mønobi 2447:Monobi 2435:Mønobi 2392:(st47) 2386:ʎʇɹnoɟ 2358:(st47) 2352:ʎʇɹnoɟ 2280:(st47) 2274:ʎʇɹnoɟ 2249:(st47) 2243:ʎʇɹnoɟ 2196:(st47) 2190:ʎʇɹnoɟ 2167:(st47) 2161:ʎʇɹnoɟ 2138:(st47) 2132:ʎʇɹnoɟ 1906:JPG-GR 1902:should 1889:(st47) 1883:ʎʇɹnoɟ 1863:Addhoc 1820:proven 1373:Wiggy! 1317:Addhoc 1259:JPG-GR 1252:, and 1018:NFCC#8 544:Addhoc 333:second 269:others 247:, and 213:single 61:task 7 59:Polbot 3188:Dbiel 2994:Dbiel 2945:other 2810:thing 2806:thing 2773:Dbiel 2763:Dbiel 2636:thing 2632:thing 2593:uǝʌǝs 2539:Dbiel 2517:Dbiel 2476:Dbiel 2423:Dbiel 2383:uǝʌǝs 2349:uǝʌǝs 2271:uǝʌǝs 2240:uǝʌǝs 2205:Dbiel 2187:uǝʌǝs 2158:uǝʌǝs 2129:uǝʌǝs 2119:Dbiel 2098:Break 2079:Dbiel 2065:Dbiel 1972:thing 1968:thing 1880:uǝʌǝs 1854:Dbiel 1828:prove 1816:prove 1641:Dbiel 1550:Dbiel 1407:Dbiel 1396:area. 1313:Atran 1298:Dbiel 967:Dbiel 942:Dbiel 918:Dbiel 881:human 817:Dbiel 688:Dbiel 437:do). 411:more. 315:valid 282:older 199:(Y/N) 89:count 16:< 3202:talk 3115:talk 3082:talk 3059:talk 3011:talk 2966:over 2927:and 2889:talk 2866:talk 2843:talk 2812:. – 2738:talk 2663:does 2625:logo 2463:talk 2372:talk 2317:talk 2104:long 2048:talk 2009:talk 1910:talk 1867:talk 1836:fact 1741:and 1688:Toth 1658:talk 1650:link 1490:talk 1377:talk 1357:talk 1321:talk 1311:The 1263:talk 1146:this 1124:talk 1100:talk 1061:only 1049:talk 1035:talk 998:vast 952:only 928:only 890:talk 835:talk 548:talk 517:talk 443:talk 361:only 350:very 265:Some 249:here 245:here 241:here 227:here 166:some 119:flag 99:logs 79:talk 69:BRFA 3050:are 2451:not 1927:not 1824:was 1683:Aza 1635:to 1528:not 1524:But 1481:but 1424:not 1368:and 1274:not 1242:not 826:all 719:not 509:not 464:Max 435:can 417:Max 329:not 297:far 190:per 164:to 94:SUL 3268:: 3204:) 3156:– 3117:) 3084:) 3061:) 3013:) 2939:, 2915:, 2911:, 2891:) 2868:) 2845:) 2740:) 2685:}} 2679:{{ 2628:}} 2622:{{ 2599:ʇs 2465:) 2389:ʇs 2374:) 2355:ʇs 2319:) 2277:ʇs 2246:ʇs 2193:ʇs 2164:ʇs 2156:-- 2135:ʇs 2127:-- 2050:) 2011:) 1980:do 1912:) 1886:ʇs 1869:) 1769:? 1767:}} 1761:{{ 1743:{{ 1735:{{ 1717:}} 1711:{{ 1660:) 1619:- 1585:}} 1579:{{ 1573:, 1492:) 1379:) 1359:) 1347:- 1323:) 1265:) 1248:, 1224:- 1221:15 1218:14 1215:13 1212:12 1209:11 1206:10 1126:) 1102:) 1094:. 1092:}} 1086:{{ 1082:}} 1076:{{ 1051:) 1037:) 892:) 837:) 657:." 636:." 617:}} 611:{{ 605:}} 599:{{ 550:) 519:) 470:em 445:) 423:em 325:}} 319:{{ 243:, 223:}} 217:{{ 204:Y 162:}} 156:{{ 129:– 3200:( 3178:β 3146:β 3126:β 3113:( 3080:( 3069:β 3057:( 3041:β 3009:( 2984:β 2887:( 2876:β 2864:( 2853:β 2841:( 2830:β 2797:β 2736:( 2728:) 2572:β 2527:β 2507:β 2461:( 2370:( 2315:( 2089:β 2046:( 2007:( 1994:β 1908:( 1865:( 1806:β 1680:→ 1656:( 1488:( 1470:. 1445:β 1375:( 1355:( 1319:( 1261:( 1203:9 1200:8 1197:7 1194:6 1191:5 1188:4 1185:3 1182:2 1179:1 1122:( 1111:β 1098:( 1067:β 1047:( 1033:( 985:β 888:( 833:( 546:( 515:( 467:S 441:( 420:S 353:( 202:: 180:: 121:) 67:( 53:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

:Bots/Requests for approval/Polbot 7 - Knowledge (XXG)

Index