User talk:Carnildo

If you're here about an image, try asking your question at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Answers to common questions

Why did you delete my image?

The simple answer: I didn't. Someone else did.

The full answer: If you're coming here to ask about an image, it probably was deleted because you forgot to note where you got the image from, or you forgot to indicate the copyright status of the image. See Wikipedia:Image use policy for more information on what you need to do when uploading images.

It says that anyone can copy this image. Why is it being deleted?

The image is not under a free license. There are three things that the image creator needs to permit for an image to be under a free license:

1. They need to permit distribution
2. They need to permit modification and incorporation into other works (the creation of derivative works)
3. They need to permit distribution of derivative works

A permission to copy covers #1, but does not permit #2 (which is what lets Wikipedia use it in an article), and does not permit #3 (which is what permits us to distribute Wikipedia, and what permits people to re-use Wikipedia content).

I got permission to use this image in Wikipedia. Why is it being deleted?

Simple permission is not good enough. The image owner could revoke permission at any time, and the image can't be reused anywhere else: not in Wiktionary, not in Wikibooks, and possibly not in the other languages Wikipedia is available in. It also prevents people from re-using Wikipedia content. Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia, so any image should be under a free license. Simple permission fails all three points of what constitutes a free license.

It says that anyone can use this image for noncommercial purposes. Wikipedia is non-commercial, so that means it's okay, right?

The Wikimedia Foundation, the organization that runs Wikipedia, is registered as a non-profit organization. That doesn't mean it's noncommercial, though: the German Wikipedia, for example, sells copies of the encyclopedia on CD-ROM as a fundraising measure. Further, Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia, so any image should be under a free license. Any license with a "no commercial use" clause fails all three points of what constitutes a free license.

It says that anyone can use this image for educational purposes. Wikipedia is educational, so that means it's okay, right?

Wikipedia articles are intended to educate, yes. But "educational purposes" is a very vague term. The creator of the image could mean that they only want the image to be used by universities and the like, or they might object to Wikipedia's coverage of popular culture. It's best to stay away from images with such vague terms.

Further, Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia, so any image should be under a free license. Any license with an "educational use only" clause fails all three points of what constitutes a free license.

The web page I found this image on doesn't say anything about copyright. That means it's free to use, right?

Wrong. In the United States, under the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988, every tangible work of creative effort created after March 1, 1989 is automatically copyrighted. Including a copyright statement gives you a stronger position if you file a copyright infringement lawsuit, and you need to register your copyright with the Library of Congress to file the lawsuit, but neither step is needed to get a copyright in the first place.

I found this image on the Internet. Anyone can see it, so that means it's in the public domain, right?

Wrong. Anyone can see a book in a public library, or a painting in an art gallery, but that doesn't mean those are in the public domain. The Internet is no different.

The image was created 50 years ago. It can't possibly still be copyrighted, can it?

Wrong. In the United States, copyright lasts a very long time. As a rule of thumb, everything published in 1923 or later is copyrighted.

Archives: The beginning through April 22, 2005 April 22, 2005 to August 3, 2005 August 3, 2005 to November 4, 2005 November 5, 2005 to January 24, 2006 January 24, 2006 to February 15, 2006 February 15, 2006 to April 13, 2006 April 13, 2006 to June 30, 2006 June 30 to December 1 December 1, 2006 to January 6, 2007 January 6, 2007 to July 19, 2007

Your bot made a mistake

On the Talk:Emmanuel College, Melbourne page, your bot claims that there is a copyright problem on the page. The bot is correct - there was a mistake. You see, the article is a school, which this year has become two schools under the same name. I will fix this, but is there going to be a problem? Will the bot delete the image on the page? Cheers ~ James Kanjo (talk) 23:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

No, the image wouldn't have been deleted, but if you hadn't updated the image description page to include a rationale for that article, the bot would have removed the image from it a few days from now. --Carnildo (talk) 23:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Tiresome Comment On Your Bot

Your bot deleted my image from an article I contributed to: Image:Lunar2007 029.jpg

The said image is mine. It is tagged properly for copyright. Do not deleted my contributions again. Many of us are now spending more time dealing with bots vandalising our contributions than we are contributing to the site. If you are responsible for maintaining a bot, then you are responsible for the damage it does. This is the third time this month that this has happened and I think that its time its accepted that there is no point contributing to Wikipedia if articles and images are attacked three times a week. In essence this is simply vandalism, and I have noticed that the people who appoint themselves as the maintainers of bots tend to be very aggressive when their actions are questioned. I do not steal other people's images, I do tag my images as my own work. I do not expect my hard work to be vandalised and deleted. Make sure that this is the last time this happens. Thank you PrivateWiddle (talk) 13:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Bot deleted UP Logo in UPLB Wiki Page

your bot deleted the UP logo in the UPLB Wiki page, even though the Logo satisfies req'ts. The said logo is still in use (UP System). Bot action was undone Meynardtengco (talk) 21:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Images Being Deleted

Hello, your bot has deleted two of my uploaded pictures, one for Sohodolls and the other for Ribbed Music For The Numb Generation. I was sent both of those images from the keyboardist of the band to put up on wikipedia, because I run their wikipedia pages. I'm not sure how exactly a "bot" works but it would be great if I could be sent a message first before my pictures are deleted.. I would like to know the reasoning for this deletion. Thank you,Rockinfreakapotomi 22:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Neither of my bots has ever edited Ribbed Music For The Numb Generation, and ImageRemovalBot only removed Image:L af7997e483ece058879f4d6a8ac2dca2.jpg from Sohodolls because User:Quadell had already deleted it. --Carnildo 22:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

woops my mistake, I meant to say also from Steven Weston, I apologize.. and your reasoning for deleting the image is because User:Quadell had deleted it? what exactly do you mean.. did that person take the image off from the Sohodolls page? Rockinfreakapotomi 22:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

After Quadell deleted the image, he did not remove it from the article. This left a redlink to the image (basically, the article looked like this). My bot noticed the deletion, and finished the deletion process by removing the link to the image -- a basic cleanup procedure. If you want to know why the image was deleted in the first place, you should talk to Quadell. --Carnildo 23:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't Understand

Why is it every time I upload a picture and has a correct tag it still says it will be deleted? Timothychavis 00:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Paul Ellender Picture

This is the User:b-rah and I am letting you know I forwarded my permission from Boston United Football Club Official Site (bufc.co.uk),the legal holders of this picture, to www.permissions-en@wikimedia.org twice. I will be uploading up the picture again, and if I fail for a third time I might need your help upoading it. Being allowed to use this picture would be very important to me for Paul Ellender is my favorate footballer. Thanks a lot for your patience and help so far.

OrphanBot update

When you get back, would you mind updating OrphanBot? Based on Erik and Jimbo's comments, it looks like the {{cc-by-3.0}} license is now acceptable. 17Drew 04:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Asking about Egoz title.gif

Hey there, I noticed your request for information on the Egoz title.gif image that I uploaded. the image is of the logo of an Egyptian rock band, of which I am a member. It was created by the band itself but we haven't copyrighted it. What can I do to avoid its deletion?

I have a question

I was given a copyright notice about an image of the suspected killer Gregory Despres. I posted the source of the image but im not sure of the copyright and does Canada have the same copyright laws as the United States. Thanks. --Kuzwa 13:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I put an image on, but verifying it is too WIKI-complicated

You're right.. I uploaded a picture to the article I wrote on "Douglass High School, Kingsport, Tennessee" I took the picture, it is mine and nobody else's, but WIKI's system of establishing that it is indeed mine and doesn't need to be copyrighted is so complicated, "a cave man like me CANNOT do it." I took the picture, but I have no way to verify it, so if it gets deleted, c'est la vie. It's easier figuring out the molecular structure of the brain and living tissue.Csneed 00:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

ImageRemovalBot

Mostly due to the bot being amazing, but also because I'm lazy and don't want to remove links myself, I've approved your bot request for up do 15 epm if needed to keep up. Your flag should be granted shortly. --ST47Talk·Desk 18:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Yay, this is a great idea and will be very useful. - cohesion 18:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. 6epm should be fast enough for now, but if we get to a point where there's a sustained rate of more than 300 image deletions per hour, the higher edit rate will be useful. --Carnildo 18:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Image removal problem

Hi, I have a problem. Here is an example of something that ImageRemovalBot is having trouble with: On the page for the band The Secret Machines, someone had set up a gallery of images for the band's full-length albums. ImageRemovalBot deleted the image of the band's first album for having no fair use rationale, and then sought to remove the image from the article's page. However, in doing so, it also removed all mention of the album itself in the Albums section, making it seem as if the band had only recorded one album instead of two (see this diff). The bot needs to be able to remove the image without deleting the album entirely from the band's page. (This is not the first time I've seen this problem.) Chubbles 03:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not possible. There's no way to remove an image from a gallery without also removing the caption, and there's no way for the bot to know if an image's caption is "important" or not -- that's a hard task even for a human. --Carnildo 06:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It is, however, extremely important. Consider that if someone has put up a gallery for a band with two albums, and the bot removes all trace of their first album - the band then becomes a target for deletion, because it appears that they have only released one notable album according to WP:MUSIC. If the bot is going to be deleting important information along with the images, I am going to challenge this. Chubbles 12:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's another example. A band which scored three top ten albums in the UK appears, according to this diff, to have recorded no albums at all. Chubbles 12:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Same issue: this diff makes this band a very likely candidate for deletion, now that its three LPs don't appear to exist anymore. Chubbles 17:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know enough to take a side on this particular issue, but I have to ask what reason there would be to write an article on a band without mentioning their albums anywhere but in the gallery. Even if you knew no image would ever be deleted, why not mention the albums in the article itself in the first place? ---Fried Gold 19:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Tell you what. If you write the artificial intelligence that can tell if an image caption is "important" to the meaning of an article, even when the image has been deleted, I'll incorporate it into ImageRemovalBot. --Carnildo 19:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not a coder. I have two ideas for a simple solutions, though:

1. Have the bot replace gallery images with a default image, such as nocover.png.
2. Stop the bot from removing gallery images. These can be logged separately to be removed appropriately by hand. It would be much more preferable to have a red link in the gallery than to remove the images the way they are being handled now.

The point is, it's nice that your bot is cleaning up other peoples' messes, but it can't leave its own mess as it does so. That's a waste of everyone's time, including yours and mine. First, do no harm. Chubbles 19:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

1. Discographies are far from the only place where galleries of deleted images can be found, and there's no reliable way of identifying discographies.
2. Are you volunteering? If so, I can have ImageRemovalBot provide you with a list of galleries that need work.

--Carnildo 20:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not my job to make sure your bot is working properly. If your bot is creating a mess, it's your job to fix it. I don't wish to be obstreperous here, but I think either of my two proposed solutions are eminently workable - for the first, there has to be some sort of default "no image" image that can be replaced. For the second, I maintain that it is much more preferable for the bot to leave red images in articles than to delete relevant content. If it does less work but does it better, it is a better bot. Chubbles 20:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, now that I've looked around a bit at the relevant places (policies, ImageRemovalBot's page, and so forth), I think I have a rough idea of the issues here. Chubbles, I'm having a hard time seeing this gallery problem as a problem at all. Even if it is, is it really a big enough problem to justify stopping all the useful work this bot would have to stop? I'm not saying you're wrong, but if you're right, you haven't made a very convincing case here. (Full disclosure: I'm a Wikipedia novice.) --Fried Gold 22:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not interested in stopping the bot entirely. I am interested in limiting what it currently does, and removing images from galleries is a small part of what it does. Again, I think it would be a comparatively small coding fix to have it replace the images with a "deleted image" image. If this is not the case, having redlinks in galleries harms no one, is easily fixed by hand, and relevant information would no longer be being removed. Chubbles 00:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, it's doing it again. Look at this mess. Please fix the bot so that it does not continue to delete content like this. Chubbles 17:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Please note that I have brought this issue up at Wikipedia talk:Bot policy. Chubbles 17:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Image Help... Again

I know this is pointless, but then again I need your help because I can't do it. Can you please delete the older version of this image file: Image:Don't Stop the Music Single.PNG? I messed up the image information in the older version. I would really appreciate it if you can do it. Thanks in advance. Bull Borgnine 19:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

all my images are deleted by your OrphanBot

Why is it every time I upload a picture and has a correct tag it still says it will be deleted? I think the OrphanBot must be blocked by an administrator. Macys123

Thank you

Thanks for answering my question. That means that if I don't provide enough information, it will be deleted. I'll try to provide enough information on the next picture.

Your bot removed the wrong image

Hi, Carnildo. I was working my way through Category:Images with unknown source as of 3 August 2007, and came across Image:Julie Andrews.jpg. Your bot said on the page that it had

Removed from the following pages:

1. Julie Andrews

--OrphanBot 06:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The image said at the bottom that Julie Andrews linked to it, so I assumed that someone had reverted the bot. I went to have a look, and the image in question was at the top of the page. I looked through the history, and saw that in fact your bot had been (at that point) the last editor to edit the page, and had claimed to be removing that image,[1] so I wondered had that image been used twice in the page and had your bot only removed one of them. In my own edit, which was next, I removed the image from the top, but also removed the coding left after your bot had commented out the image.[2] (I prefer images to be removed rather than commented out.) I then looked at the version from before your bots edit, and realised that they were two different images. Your bot, though claiming in the link in the edit summary to be removing Image:Julie Andrews.jpg, had in fact removed Image:JulieAndrews.jpg, which was not tagged as unsourced (though perhaps it should be?). I'm not sure if I should reinsert the latter image into the article. I only removed the coding because OrphanBot had commented it out and because I assumed that it was an improperly-tagged image which I was going to delete anyway. I tend not to like articles to be sprinkled lavishly with unfree images. But really, I just want to point out that you need to teach your bot to distinguish between two words with a space between and two words without a space between. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 10:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Yesterday I taught the bot that two words with one space between them is the same as two words with more than one space between them, and this was a side effect. I've fixed the problem. --Carnildo 18:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Image with rationale tagged (twice) three separate times as not having one

I just got a notice from the bot that Image:Second Ave Subway CGI station.jpg has no rationale when it clearly does have one, and it has had one ever since the image was very first uploaded earlier today. Not only did the bot tag the template as missing a rationale, but it tagged it twice with two different edits. Please fix the bot, because it seems that I am not the only one having issues with it. –Dream out loud (talk) 23:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: The bot once again tagged the image a third time after I removed the first two tags. I'm sure it is bound to do it again. –Dream out loud (talk) 00:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I do wish people would stop coming up with new names for old templates. --Carnildo 01:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Image assistance

Carnildo, I need you to delete the earlier versions of the file Image:Don't Stop the Music Single.PNG, I hope it's not alot of hard work for you to do. Thanks in advance, even if you don't do it, I know I've bothered you enough already with deleting earlier versions of images before. Bull Borgnine 18:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

OrphanBot

Carnildo, As part of a study for a new bot approval Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/StatusBot I've added OrphanBot to that tracking category (no edits to OrphanBot's pages will be made). Can't think of a much more active user! Please let this run for a week before removing unless you have some other issue with it. Thanks! — xaosflux ^Talk 00:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

OrphanBot error

OrphanBot closed a comment in the wrong place when commenting out an image in The Legend of Zelda: The Minish Cap in this edit. (correcting diff) Pagrashtak 18:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. I'm not sure what happened there: OrphanBot's normally able to spot when it makes that sort of mistake, and notify me that it needs manual correction. --Carnildo 20:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Image help Image:Don't Stop the Music Single.PNG

Hi again Carnildo. Can you delete the earlier versions of this file please: Image:Don't Stop the Music Single.PNG? I know you did it before, but the image I uploaded is being vandalized by JCF110. I do not know how to deal with this. Is there a way you can warn him? He keeps uploading a fan-made single cover. Please, I need your help immediatily. Thanks in advance. Bull Borgnine 02:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Irvine New Town Trail

My image was deleted because I stated that I was not sure what the copyright was and a more experienced user would submit the copyright for me at a later date. But the image was deleted BEFORE THE 7 DAY PERIOD THAT WAS STATED! EwanMclean2005 19:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

What image are you referring to? --Carnildo 19:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

, it's okay, I looked into the copyright details and found the right one, and reuploaded it. Thanks for reply and I apologise for shouting cause wiki sometimes confuses me. EwanMclean2005 15:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Upolu champs.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Upolu champs.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Wikipedia:Image use policy Wikipedia:Image copyright tags This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• http://www.teivovo.com/pacific_rugby_cup/index.html

He should not have the rights please... User:Ddfree 16:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Bot

Hello, is your bot misbehaving? [3] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davidprior (talk • contribs) 21:08, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

Figures. The normal version of the bot can't remove that image, and the development version removes the whole page. Don't worry, that's the only page the bot will have messed up. --Carnildo 21:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Cheers mate, Davidprior 21:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Augustus image

I have replaced the image that had questionable copyright status. Still object for another reason?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 10:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

WHY HAS THE FLAG OF ALBANIA BEEN REMOVED?

Gentelman

Why have you removed the flag of Albania under the government of ESAT PASHA?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Esatpasha.png

THIS IS VERY BAD! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deuleu (talk • contribs) 13:57, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Maybe they copyrighted it.:P Stupid fascistic bots.^^

Honestly, take this thing down. It only causes trouble. If somebody is bothered by the copyright, the image will be removed anyway. There are a plenty of smaller pages, a good example are the ones containing the screenshots of freeware programs under GNU lincence, having their images removed, simply because nobody visited them whilst the deletion took place. Thus something that is obviously legal to any user, with an IQ of 65+, viewing the page, is deleted by the bot.

Why on earth would anybody waste their time writing a copyright bot anyway?~~MaxGrin (talk) 13:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It's an ego thing. Ego over writing the bot to begin with, and ego over being able to remove many more images then one could do by one's self. These bots are causing all kinds of destruction all over Wikipedia. Many times, they delete images that are perfectly fine. It's the ego of the creator, and the desire to be a macho editor who specializes only in deletion. -- Elaich ^talk 00:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it has more to do with laziness. --Carnildo (talk) 00:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Irish hunger strike FAC

I've changed the images on this. I'm not really sure if the murals are classed as "commissioned works" or not, but rather than avoid problems I've changed them as the murals are overused slightly anyway. Is it possible for you to re-visit please? Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Possible OrphanBot bug

OrphanBot seems to have created a page in the main namespace. I've just prodded the page, and assume that your bot is happy with that. :-) I'm not sure if this is a bug, but I wanted to let you know in case you wanted to look into it. Best wishes, Jakew 12:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

No bug. OrphanBot created the page, but at the time, it was titled User talk:Blacks 310. The user later moved his talk page into article space. --Carnildo 23:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Pelamis

Many thanks for with drawing your objection at Renewable energy in Scotland. No doubt the article can live without the Pelamis image and I quite understand that featured articles need to be 100% copy violation-free. However, it also appears on Renewable energy and the wave converter's own article etc. I note from the tag that "This image or media may fail Wikipedia's first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a free image might reasonably be found or created that adequately provides the same information." My suspicion is that it may be very difficult to get such an image. On land the devices are kept under lock and key for obvious reasons and unless you were lucky enough to be invited to a site, you would need a fast boat and a lot of nerve to get one at sea. I realise I could make the same point by attaching a {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}} tag to the image, but I thought it was more polite to ask if this is a reasonable argument in advance. Ben MacDui (Talk) 08:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried contacting the company to get them to provide a free-licensed image for Wikipedia? Wikipedia:Example requests for permission has some useful suggestions on how to do this. --Carnildo 18:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You removed my comment from User talk:ImageRemovalBot [4]

But did you actually fix the bug in your bot? It's not exactly a good thing if it's going around Wikipedia breaking (or making misleading) discographies, fair use issues or otherwise. -81.178.126.124 18:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as the bot isn't broken, there's nothing to fix. You should probably read Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. --Carnildo 18:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I understand Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria completely - however, I also think that the accuracy of Wikipedia deserves equal if not greater priority, particularly in terms of automated bots - particularly ones which are breaking the content of pages. I'd also suggest you go to WP:MOS and fix the incorrect formatting in the revision you made to Trail of Dead#Albums -81.178.126.124 19:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I've also listed the bot at WP:AN/I. -81.178.126.124 19:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the IP means things like this change where the bot accidentally commented out the text in the table as well as the image. Shell ^babelfish 21:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Removing images from galleries is an all-or-nothing thing. The bot can either leave broken images links in galleries, or it can remove them. It is not possible to leave the caption but remove the image. --Carnildo 21:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

My fault, I thought that was a table, not a gallery. You're absolutely right, no reason to leave a description there. Thanks for the quick response! Shell ^babelfish 22:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphanbot off-policy removal of Image:Capture.jpg

re: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%CE%9CTorrent&diff=154753416&oldid=154080751

1. The comment is inaccurate:(I still think it) Should read: Images without copyright tag such as { {Non-free software screenshot } } can be deleted 7 days after notification.
2. There's a tag in the image page { {di-no license|date=August 26 2007} } placed with an execution date: Orphanbot should respect that.
3. I've placed a { {Non-free software screenshot|image_has_rationale=yes} } and a { { Non-free use rationale } } - does this meet Orphanbot 'pass' criteria?

--Lexein 18:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

OrphanBot's actions were perfectly within policy. When the image was removed, it was marked as "no copyright status", and, in fact, did not have a copyright tag or other indication of copyright status. The bot removes images before the deletion date so that 1) so that admins can delete the images without worrying about removal, and 2) so that people watching the article are given warning about the impending deletion and can take action. You also seem to be confusing deleting an image with removing an image from an article. --Carnildo 19:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I get it: Removal-from-article is less draconian than "delete first", and provides a widely distributed notification for all who are watching the article. I'm still curious if the newly-added copyright and rationale templates will protect this image from future bot marking, removal, and deletion. --Lexein 03:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It should protect it against bots. There's no certainty that a human won't dispute the correctness of the rationale or try to get the image deleted for some other reason. --Carnildo 05:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

erroneous edit summary for Mill Ends Park

Please accept my apologies for providing an edit summary on a revert of Mill Ends Park which erroneously says you are the target. The edit summary does correctly say I reverted to your previous version. I use twinkle and popups, and somehow I operated them such that the edit summary indicated you and not 71.237.236.28 (talk · contribs) as it should have. I'll be more careful in the future. Cheers. —EncMstr 20:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. It was interesting seeing that edit summary pop up on my watchlist :-) --Carnildo 20:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphanbots edits in relation to Image:BryanAdamsHamburg.jpg

Sigh, this is why I HATE bots.

This image is correctly licensed under the Creative Commons 2.0 Attribution License. As for some reason this license is not listed in the dropdown menu when selecting a license (Only 2.5 versions are) I manually reproduced the license information as text, with a link to the CC page describing the license and correctly linking to the original source of the image for attribution purposes.

Or was I supposed to select an INCORRECT license to avoid Orphanbot tagging the image and messaging me?

Exxolon 23:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You could have simply typed {{cc-by-2.0}} into the upload summary. --Carnildo 00:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

How is the average user supposed to know that? That needs to be added to the drop down. We shouldn't expect users to remember all of the thousands of templates. --Mperry 21:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

We shouldn't expect users to scroll through a thousand-item dropdown list hunting for the correct license, either. The items in the menu are a compromise between being comprehensive and being useful. --Carnildo 22:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

But is there a link (perhaps pointing to the category of acceptable licenses or something like that) in there to help uploading users who can't find the license in the drop-down list? If not, as it is a fairly simple technical change to make to the upload page, you're setting the bar to new users unreasonably high. Donal Fellows 15:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The "standard" upload page at least does link to Wikipedia:Image copyright tags wich explain what the tags are and also link to various lists, the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license is on the free license list there. --Sherool (talk) 22:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

hey, thanks for reminding me that I hadn't selected a copyright on the image Image:Believebox.jpg everything's settled now. thank you again.

I could use some help with images and you seem like the guy who can sort things out!

Hello, you're bot alerted me a while ago I was been by Orphanbot that my images (both can be found QCW-05 needs a copyright tag. I'm sort of new at this so any help would be great! I can assure you that the images are covered under Article 5 subsection 2 of the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China (中华人民共和国著作权法) as being from a public news piece and therefore not subject to copyright, but the problem is that I can't find a template tag thing to use for this, all I can find is one for Chinese images that are over 50 years old. The Article in question can be found here:

 (1) laws; regulations; resolutions, decisions and orders of state organs;
 other documents of legislative, administrative and  judicial  nature;  and
 their official translations;
 (2) news on current affairs; and
 (3) calendars, numerical tables, forms of general use and formulas.'

http:/www.ahga.gov.cn/government/fagui/mf4/low_view1.htm/

This PRC government translation lniked from Wikipedia and many people I know that have read the copyright law straight from Simplified Chinese state that it is not 'mere facts or happenings reported by the mass media' like one user has suggested but simply, 'just news'. The source for my images are sina.com, a very popular online Chinese new site. Any help or insight into this would be much appreciated, thanks! Semi-Lobster 12:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the images are covered. They don't look like news to me. --Carnildo 04:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

http://jczs.news.sina.com.cn/p/2006-08-30/0722393854.html is the source, I assure you that sina.com is a very large legitmate news site that caters to everyone's interests, just as China's CCTV's has many channels for people's different interests Sina.com (which is not government owned) also has many news subsections that cater to people's different interests (agriculture, fashion, movies, general news, military etc.) but is still news regardless. and this was an indepth article on the introduction of a new firearm by the PLA. Also the format of Chinese news sites may not be familiar with you but I assure you this is pretty common. Semi-Lobster 11:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The images may be from a news site, but that doesn't make them news. --Carnildo 21:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It was a news article about the introduction of a new firearm (as of 2006) into the Chinese military, just because the subject was a bit obscure, doesn't stop it from being news. Also according to the translations I have both first hand and official PRC translations, the law talks about 'news on current events', the article was from a news site about the news that China was replacing an older line of weapons for a newer line and goes on to describe them, it was current news when the article was written (2006) and the pictures in the article are part of it with several diagrams used in conjunction with the article. The subject may be obscure but it is still news as far as I can define what news is. Please explain how this is not news, if this does not qualify somehow as news then I have several public access Chinese government sites that also have pictures I could use instead (given the copyright legalities surrounding it of course). Thanks for all the help, it's nice to meet those willing to help those new to wikipedia. Semi-Lobster 01:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

A question

Is this bot used on other Wikipedias? --Chinneeb_{My talk} 14:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not running ImageRemovalBot or OrphanBot on any other wikipedias, but I've given the source code to some people who were interested in doing so. --Carnildo 04:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Empty images from commons

Orphanbot is tagging Image:Jinfengopteryx wiki.jpg. Here is the story. The image is hosted on commons. However, someone put the image in the en.wikipedia category "Approved dinosaur images". The image was to be used in a front page DYK, so I came along and uploaded the file from the commons and added {{c-uploaded}}. After the image was taken off the front page, I deleted the temporary page here on en.wikipedia, but then restored the previous revision that had the category. However, the bot has since come along and tagged the image. Removing the license template only got it re-placed by the bot. So what do we do with images that are hosted and licensed on commons, but have been added to a en.wikipedia category?-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

What's causing the problem here is that the image was uploaded, deleted, then the old version of the text (with no license tag) was undeleted, all within a few hours. For future reference, OrphanBot gives up on forcing a tag on an image after a few hours, so waiting a day to remove an incorrect tag will solve the problem. --Carnildo 19:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

J. P. Calderon image

I do not understand why the image was removed from the article. The creator of the image had tagged it relinquishing rights to it. Otto4711 16:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Which image are you referring to? --Carnildo 18:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

JPCalderon.jpg - was posted with tagging by the creator releasing all rights. Otto4711 23:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The original version was deleted as a blatent copyright violation from http://www.justinrudd.com/John-Calderon,-JP,-J.P.gif. The current version is marked for deletion because it doesn't have any information on its source or copyright status. --Carnildo 01:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

"Really blatent copyvio. You can't *both* be the copyright holder of this image." - Actually we can, since Justin's my boyfriend. The article doesn't really need a photo though, so I won't reupload it. Tobias Galtieri 00:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit revert requestment

Hi Carnildo,

Do you may reverts edits on Casa Ley Articles, Please? Thank You.Alx 91 21:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

You're in Washington?

That makes us neighbors! Well, almost. Would you be interested in any notices about WikiWednesday in Portland? -- llywrch 19:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[[Image:Cause of world unrest lrg.jpg]]

I do not know how to tag a Book cover with a "Fair use" label. Can you help? Ludvikus 04:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

egle mtn, ut candidates

Carnildo, you deleted my page citing copyright violation from an election pamphlet. This pamphlet was created and mailed to every resident by the City. How can I learn what is/isn't public record? I would like to contribute more to Wikipedia but afraid I may have to obtain a masters degree in copyright law first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikesmullin (talk • contribs) 16:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

A master's degree in copyright law isn't neccessary, but a one-day course is helpful. The basics of copyright law are this: Everything is copyrighted. All rights are reserved by the copyright holder unless they state otherwise in writing. This is an oversimplification, but it will keep you out of trouble.

Useful Wikipedia pages on the subject are copyright, free content, public domain, Gratis versus Libre, and Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ. --Carnildo 17:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment about ImageRemovalBot

Here's a suggestion for a Bot improvement. When ImageRemovalBot deletes wikilinks in articles to deleted images in info boxes, it would be good if it also deleted the associated caption text. See, for example, the Walter Panas High School article, in which I manually deleted the image caption text. When the image link is deleted and the caption text remains, you see the caption appearing as seemingly-random text near the top of the article. Truthanado 19:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll see what I can do about it, but there are limits on what the bot can manage. In the case of templates that use the standard image syntax (such as the article you pointed out), the bot isn't aware it's removing an image from an infobox, and can't know that it needs to remove a caption as well. You might also see about getting the infoboxes redesigned: some infoboxes won't display a caption if there isn't also an image. --Carnildo 19:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

I owe you a big thank you for supporting me in My RfA, which was successful with 67 supports and 20 opposes. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 23:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

A question about image Image:Baghdad-bombings.jpg

The Image:Baghdad-bombings.jpg has been removed from the article Operation Law and order twice already and it had been in the article for the previous five months. It is stated that the imahe has been removed because there is no soruce information. But there is. I have stated that the source of the image was antiwar.com but they have removed the image from their site. That is not my fault. The source is still antiwar.com so how can we resolve this. The imga has to stick because it represents an important event during Operation Law and order. And there is no other image of the event OR free equivalent. Please send me a reply. Thank you. Top Gun —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.116.174.132 (talk) 03:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

If you can find out who the photographer or copyright holder is, and can explain why the image (not the subject of the image, the image itself) is historically significant, then the image can be kept. Otherwise, it needs to be deleted. --Carnildo 03:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Yup. Another bot notice.

Hi! It's gotten so I have no idea whatsoever what constitutes fair use anymore. Images that were once OK to use either are or aren't, seemengly dependent on which way the wind is blowing.  :) --PMDrive1061 07:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

If you're referring to Image:Hcaa23-main-2.jpg, I'm afraid you've landed solidly on the "aren't" side of things this time. Images of things like existing buildings, living people, and common objects generally aren't permitted under the fair use policy. --Carnildo 23:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

FAC and WP:CITE

Hi Carnildo. You're an experienced Wikipedian and a frequent FAC contributor. Please review my contributions to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Peterborough. I want to know if you think I'm being too harsh, particularly ref WP:CITE. I recognise that the article writer has a point when he refers me to CITE, but I worry because the sources are inaccessible, it's impossible for a reader to ascertain what material in the paragraph is sourced and what isn't, which becomes even more of a problem as the article endures future edits. Furthermore, surely FA is about the highest possible standards? Give it to me straight. Many thanks. --Dweller 12:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Image removal

Why did your bot delete the tpskyline.jpg image? It was fully uploaded by thje owner, Marc Simpson of ManiaHub, and you asked me to reference it via my talk page, which I did! It's a complete farce. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebastianoutfin (talk • contribs) 18:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

File:Tpskyline.jpg was deleted because it didn't say where the image came from or who created it, and from looking at the deleted versions of the image, I can't any evidence that it ever did have source information. --Carnildo 23:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Blue Velvet movie image

I added the copyright status to the Blue Velvet movie image as requested. Cheers, Malverne 10:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

User:OrphanBot suggestion

When removing a copyvio image from an article, would it be possible for OrphanBot to see if there's a recent version of the article, that had a valid free image, which it could be put back? A common and growing problem is that some people replace free images with unallowed images, which OrphanBot removes, and the article has no image. --Rob 05:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a job that requires human judgement. OrphanBot can figure out "free", but "recent" and "valid" are beyond it. --Carnildo 06:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

If the bad image is added in the very last added, couldn't you just revert to the prior version? That's basically the same thing that happens (by a different bot) when somebody page blanks. There's no real potential for making things worse, and good potential for making them better, by doing this. --Rob 12:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

That won't help often enough to be worth the effort of implementing it. How common is it that a free image is replaced by a bad image, and then the article is not touched again for four days (OrphanBot) or seven days (ImageRemovalBot)? What if the "free" image replaced by a non-free one was deleted for having a false license? What if the "free" image was penis vandalism? I've seen people try to use OrphanBot to gain an advantage in edit wars; how long do you think it would be until people try to trick OrphanBot into placing Image:Autofellatio.jpg in high-profile articles? --Carnildo 20:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Belarus

This was snuck under my nose; anyways, the issue has been rectified. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Alester Crowley Article

It's seems that either you or Orphanbot removed two valuable images from the Alester Crowley article. Both were pictures of him in the later part of his life, blad and wrinkled. The first photo showes him in a mock-buddha sitting stance, and the other showes him pointing his finger in an errie way. I would justl ike to know if these rv. were intentional, and if not, would you mind restoring the images? Thanks. 69.250.130.215 21:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

If you're referring to Aleister Crowley, Image:Crowley yoga.jpg and Image:CrowleyFinger.jpg were removed because the uploader didn't say where the images were from, and Image:AleisterMagick.jpg was removed because nobody could figure out the copyright status. --Carnildo 21:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Whoops

Yeah, I shouldn't have struck the entire !vote.[5] Thanks for catching that. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

pertinence

68.39.174.238 (talk · contribs) actually posted a good question about ImageRemovalBot (talk · contribs) on its user page. Is that something that you could code into the aforementioned bot? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 13:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Removing OrphanBot's comments? I could, but what would the benefit be? --Carnildo 19:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, those images were deleted -- actually, for that matter, why does OrphanBot comment out deleted images instead of just removing them? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 22:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

By commenting them out, it's easier to see what images the article used to have, and it makes it easier to put images back if they're undeleted or re-uploaded. --Carnildo 23:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

disneyland map

Why would Disney want to keep copyright on an old map? See Ya', tfullwood 15:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Because they're Disney: see Mickey Mouse Protection Act. More to the point, Disney's motivation doesn't matter. All that matters is whether or not they copyrighted it, and whether or not they renewed the copyright. As the uploader, it's your job to determine that the image was either never copyrighted, or that the copyright has expired. --Carnildo 20:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

GPL

Do you know why this happened? Is it just because the first template wasn't completed? tiZom_(2¢) 19:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. {{free screenshot}} requires that you indicate the specific free license, or it puts the image in Category:All images with unknown copyright status. --Carnildo 20:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

OrphanBot and free screenshots

Between 1st and 3rd October, the {{free screenshot}} template featured a hack that caused it to transclude {{no license}} if no parameters to the template were given. Apparently this caused OrphanBot to tag such images for deletion, even if they had a valid separate license tag. For an example, see the history of Image:Kolourpaint-screenshot.png. Given that the license parameter to {{free screenshot}} used to be considered optional until quite recently, provided that a valid license was otherwise specified, I suspect this affected quite a few images. I suppose I could just go through the contribution history of OrphanBot for those three days and check if any more free screenshots were incorrectly tagged because of this, but since that would be quite a chore, I thought I'd ask if you might have some more convenient way of obtaining a list of free screenshots tagged by OrphanBot during that interval. Thanks in advance! —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The list of "Template in ... was probably subst'd" messages at [6] looks like what you want. --Carnildo 00:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Does OrphanBot consider {{Free screenshot}} as a valid license tag in it's own right? Also can the bot detect wether or not a valid tag has been entered as a parameter to the tag (part of the problem is that people often just type a string like "GFDL" rater than add the actual tag to the license parameter... I guess my little "hack" on the template was no great sucess due to all the false positives it caused, so a better way to "police" it is probably needed. Would it be doable to have OrphanBot consider the template as "not a copyright tag" if it's parameters are empty, valid if it's parameter is another valid tag, and "need human review" (add to a list or category somewhere) if there is a parameter but it's not a license tag. Or something along those lines? --Sherool (talk) 07:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

When dealing with existing images, OrphanBot only sees if the image is in the appropriate category. For new uploads, it considers all templates with names ending in "screenshot" to be copyright tags requiring a source. One of these days I'll get around to re-writing OrphanBot so that it can better deal with these things. --Carnildo 23:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

My recent RfA

Thank you for supporting my RfA, which unfortunately didn't succeed. The majority of the opposes stated that I needed more experience in the main namespace and Wikipedia namespace, so that is what I will do. I will go for another RfA in two month's time and I hope you will be able to support me then as well. If you have any other comments for me or wish to be notified when I go for another RfA, please leave them on my talk page. If you wish to nominate me for my next RfA, please wait until it has been two months. Thanks again for participating in my RfA! -- Cobi^(t|c|b|cn) 01:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Are NSF images really acceptable?

Hi there. May I ask why you re-labeled Geodynam.jpg as lacking proper source? I stated on the image page the exact NSF page where the image was taken from, and I have included the proper NSFIL tag too. Thanks. --Geoeg 04:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I overlooked the link in the upload log. According to the page you got the image from, it's not a suitable image for Wikipedia, since it's restricted to non-commercial use only. --Carnildo 06:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by overlooked, does it mean it's all settled now? If not, why does Wikipedia:Free image resources (at the bottom) show NSFIL as acceptable images? --Geoeg 22:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It's okay for source, but the image license itself is not appropriate. Wikipedia:Free image resources is a bit misleading: some NSFIL images are acceptable on Wikipedia. This is not one of them. --Carnildo 02:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

60021 image of mine

I know I forgot the image tag, so I uploaded the image again with image tag a couple of minutes later

Llamafish 09:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete image

Why your bot delete image actress Jessica Alba in Gag (BDSM)?212.122.214.230 08:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Image of 66430

Hi, is it possible for you to explain to me how to add a tag to an existing image?

Please reply on my talk pages

Llamafish 19:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Dr Mario Bactria Extermination

Your ImageRemovalBot Deleted a Picture on the article for Dr. Mario & the Bactaria Exermination for no given reason! I demand an explanation! 88.109.50.205 16:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The image was deleted before ImageRemovalBot got involved. All the bot did was clean up after a lazy admin. --Carnildo 17:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

A new screenshot has been added, by the way.88.109.50.205 17:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Users' Alliance

Dear Friend, the Wikipedia Users’ Alliance has been deleted. I am sure that perhaps you already knew this. I myself just found out. Anyhow during the debate many mean and rude things where said. I am not innocent myself; I too contributed to the unpleasantness. But now Wikipedia Users’ Alliance is dead, gone forever. But we all must move on, for me and my friends, we have to deal with this loss. However it is important that all of us work together to fight vandalism and not argue with one another. There are many things that I want to say, but I know that they would only add to the mean sprit that fills the “air”. As a Buddhist (Risshō Kōsei Kai) I was reading the Holy Dhammapada yesterday. I came across this line, “Holding onto anger is like holding on to a hot coal with the intent to throw it at someone, in the end you are the one who gets burned,” how true! Lets us progress forward. WUA Founder User: King of Nepal has expressed similar views such as these to me via e-mail. His majesty said, “We have to move on, move forward. It is in the best interest of Wikipedia and us all.” I agree and hope that you do to. Thanks. --Greenwood1010 12:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC) Co-founder of the WUA. If you feel that you recived this message in error please let me know.

Test

Testing 1 2 3 --ImageRemovalBot 05:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Image removal

Yes i know that the image has no proper licensing but let the other bot delete that on October 30 and i will personally remove the image link in the page. Thank you. --βritand&βeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 08:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for participating in my RfA. As you may be aware, it was closed as "no consensus". Since your vote was one of the reasons why it did not succeed, I would like to personally address your concerns so that I can reapply successfully. Your concern was "Between disagreeing with Wikipedia's goal of free content, and his apparent lack of understanding of IAR, I'm not comfortable with him being an admin."

Please let me explain this more clearly. I do not oppose Wikipedia's goal of free content. Rather, I think that it should be balanced against the goal of creating a high-quality encyclopedia. Both using high-quality (though sometimes non-free) content and using free-as-in-freedom content further the end goal of Wikipedia: to provide more knowledge to more people in the form of an encyclopedia. Thus, we should seek a balance between free and non-free content that brings the maximum amount of knowledge to the maximum amount of people. The current non-free content policy does a very good, though not perfect, job of bringing us closer to this goal.

As I also explained in my RfA, it would be inappropriate of me to use the administrative tools to force this view on others, so my personal opinion of the policy is largely irrelevant anyway.

Please let me know if this addresses your concerns. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 01:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

That addresses my concerns over your views of free content. Your view of Ignore All Rules is still a cause for concern. As an admin, you often come across situations the rules don't cover, or where the rules are a hinderance. For example, there's no criteria for speedy deletion that would cover deleteing a work of fiction, but those get speedy-deleted on a regular basis. IAR is a large part of what lets admins work without getting tangled up in bureaucracy and wikilawyering. --Carnildo 01:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

My tendency is to put more stuff through the WP:AfD process than strictly necessary, but yes, you raise a good point about speedily deleting things obviously not meant to be in Wikipedia. I don't know if I would ever do that, but I know that I would be able to should the need arise. I understand that the rules can be bent sometimes, and that's probably the explanation of IAR you were looking for. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 01:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you trying to destroy Wikipedia?

When I put various images on Wikipedia they had enough details to satisfy the requirements then in force. I go away on holiday and on my return I find that your bot has removed them all because apparently the rules have been changed. To be honest, I can't be bothered to find them all again and upload them again with the details according to these new rules. I think a project like Wikipedia can easily be destroyed by over-zealousness -- SteveCrook 12:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Why yes, I'm trying my hardest to wreck Wikipedia. Once it's been smashed into uselessness, the only place left for people to get information will be my secret project, Uncyclopedia! When I and I alone control the world's sources of information, I will rule the world! Mwa ha ha ha ha ha! --Carnildo 18:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk about being over zealous

Today you/your bot has earmarked THREE of my pictures, on three seperate pages, as having licensing issues today. Yet, clearly stated on each one, is the fact the subject is over 100 years old and therefore any copyright has run out. I have put the Wiki logo thingy on each one too.

What is the problem then? One pic is actually of my great-grandad - just what kind of ownership do I have to prove for that? The other two photos are of men born in the early-19th century. Clearly, tnen, any picture of them would be over 100 years old.

Why don't you get creating with some pages of your own - rather than wrecking other people's. Seahamlass 20:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

In the case of Image:Harrywattspic.jpg and Image:Corder.jpg, the tag the bot applied asks three questions: "Who created this image? Who owns the copyright to this image? Where did this image come from?". What you need to do is answer those questions. Since the copyright has expired, you've already answered the "who owns the copyright" part. For the other two questions, a simple statement like the one you made above is sufficient.

However, I'm concerned about Image:Murtoncolliery.jpg and Image:Oldpic.jpg. The license tag you've placed on them says that anyone is allowed to do anything they want with the pictures -- use them, copy them, modify them, sell them. But in the summary, you state that the copyright holder, Sunderland Echo, has granted permission only to reprint, and presumably that only applies to Wikipedia. Which is correct?

And in response to your suggestion that I create pages of my own, perhaps you should look at my upload log on Commons. --Carnildo 21:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Just looked at your upload history as you suggested. All the pages you seem to create/destroy are images, no real research/hard work/hours of sweat and labour spent bent over old documents. Why not try something new? Seahamlass 23:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seahamlass (talk • contribs)

Removal of Image

You deleted this image (Image:Songsofthecolonies.jpg) even though a valid fair-use rationale was provided. Please restore the image. -- Chironomia 01:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. I see that Maxim actually deleted the image. -- Chironomia 01:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Revert of Bot Removal of Image

Greetings -- I have reverted the National Space Institute page after your Bot's automated removal of a public domain (i.e., NASA) image of Dr. Wernher von Braun, after re-uploading the same image from another NASA Image eXchange (NIX) "mirror" site with even clearer fair-use rationale provided. See

File:VonBraun in 1960.jpg

WSpaceport 16:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

My recent RfA

Thank you for participating in my recent RfA. Although the voting ended at 36/22/5, there was no consensus to promote, and the RfA was unsuccessful. I would like the thank you nonetheless for supporting me during the RfA, and hope that any future RfA’s proceed better than this one did. Again, I thank you for your support. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 02:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see

Sorry, I was doing my usual trawl through example.jpg and .ogg and I accidentally bypassed the one in the infobox. No hard feelings. Bobo. 02:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Image removal of images uploaded to commons with a different name.

The bot deletes the image and does not replace the image with the changed name on commons, which in not good. see "Stoneleigh, Warwickshire". Snowman 17:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing the bot can do. By the time the image comes up on the bot's to-do list, it's already been deleted, and it can't tell if the image is on Commons under a different name. Your best option is to contact the admin who deleted the image. --Carnildo 20:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Image removal

I didn't even get a chance to put my rationale on the photo and it was gone! Restore the image or go to hell! Cheemo 16:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Which image do you want restored? --Carnildo 06:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh nevermind. I'm tired of fighting the anti-fair use bots (and humans) around here. I don't come here every day or every week; I don't live and breathe Wikipedia. I just wanted to help out. It just so happened that, unlike some of the other images I uploaded that have been tagged by the Fair Use Fascists, the one that was lost wasn't being watched by anyone else who could come along and add the fair use rationale because I was too busy to find the template (which, by the way, are damned near impossible to find, as if by design). Indeed, the damn bot ought to provide a link to the rationale templates, rather than just to what it thinks is wrong, so that they can be found easily. OK, if you care ... Image:Christmas Mood.PNG... It was being used in an article about composer Alfred Burt to illustrate the first public release of his famous Christmas carols. I certainly could have justified the use of the LP cover under fair use, because it was mentioned prominently in the article, there is no separate article on the album, and it was important to establishing his reputation. But anyway, I'm done uploading images until the whole fair-use mess is finally straightened out. Cheemo 04:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:MEP image (EP)

Thanks for the confirmation on this template. I had just come across a couple of these images & was looking into the source, when your note at TfD came up. I'm marking them as you suggested. SkierRMH 22:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Bot Error

Bot error. Londo06 18:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Which bot, and what's the mistake? --Carnildo 22:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

ImageRemovalBot issue

Hi Carnildo, your excellent ImageRemovalBot makes other changes on pages when it edits. This one broke some links used as references. I assume that this was because the links were poorly formatted - but we do have plenty of editors who have trouble with formatting, and losing references doesn't seem good. Is there a way to stop the bot from making these kinds of changes? Thanks. -- SiobhanHansa 00:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's the bad formatting that's at fault. ImageRemovalBot sees the double-brackets, and thinks it's an internal link -- and the changes it made are perfectly fine for internal links. I'll see what I can do about preventing this sort of thing in the future. --Carnildo 01:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

re: Image:To Catch a Predator III.jpg

Hi Carnildo, I'm a little lost as to why OrphanBot identified this image as having no source last month. If you look in the deleted revision history of the image, I did specify quite clearly where the image came from. Is this a mistake, or am I missing something here? I'd like to restore it if it's the former. theProject 06:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The image OrphanBot removed in that diff was Image:To catch a predator.jpg, which was indeed missing a source. The image you're referring to is Image:To Catch a Predator III.jpg, which OrphanBot never touched, and which was deleted because it wasn't used anywhere. --Carnildo 06:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Another ImageRemovalBot issue

In that diff, ImageRemovalBot has not only commented out the deleted image which is a very good thing to do – thank you so much! –, but also replaced characters of the Unicode Private Use Area by a huge selection of wikipedia links. Maybe that strange behaviour may interest you. -- j. 'mach' wust ☛ ☏ 06:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Ugh. ImageRemovalBot uses the Unicode private-use area for internal representation of links and comments because nobody's supposed to be using that area. Given all the other stuff the bots need to deal with on Wikipedia, I guess I shouldn't be surprised to find articles using those code points. One of these days the bot will probably run into an article using control characters, and really louse things up. --Carnildo 08:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Image reference removal.

Your bot (OrphanBot) is deleting image links in the article List of Oh My Goddess! manga chapters. While the images it's removing links to do need to be deleted, that does not mean the references to them should be deleted, as they will need to be readded so there is a linked destination filename for contributers to add the correct image later. This keeps consistancy of the filenames and allows editors to see the image is needed in the article.

I realize more than anything this is an issue of the wikipedia policies rather than your fault, but could you please leave the references to the images in this article alone so i don't have to go into an edit war with your bot, or alternatively i don't have to leave the article without these image links until after you've got round to deleting the offending images. Adding some sort of caption in the article for the image to say the image is going to be deleted would be a better alternative, and is something i've seen other bots do in this situation previously. --Zeal Vurte (talk) 09:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

There's no good way to do it, since having non-existant links in articles is not normal. Your best bet is to wait until about a day after the images are deleted (to avoid ImageRemovalBot's activity), then put the images back in. --Carnildo (talk) 02:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Don't template the regulars

Why? They make personal attacks just like the others. No difference. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 01:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Then why template anybody? Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

New Bot

I've provided the shrubbery requested for your bot split task. When you have a moment please make sure I didn't put any errors in Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ImageTaggingBot. Thanks, — xaosflux ^Talk 14:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The shrubbery looks fine. --Carnildo (talk) 22:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFBOT

<formal>Your recent bot request has been denied. Please see the request form for more information.</formal> I understand that you may be upset with operations of that other bot, but this is really not the way to resolve it. I don't personally deal with non-free images a lot so have stayed out of the cross fire as it were, but know that fixing tagging or messaging issues is the way to move forward. Any bot can be shut down if there is consensus that it is not useful, or causing harm--but that will require the community to weigh in on it. — xaosflux ^Talk 06:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that BetacommandBot is functioning just well enough not to be blocked -- usually -- and it's very difficult to get Betacommand to implement improvements. --Carnildo (talk) 07:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I ran across the request and just thought it was amusing, but seriously needed. BetacommandBot Follower: Lately, thats been my "job" title. - Rjd0060 (talk) 07:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

re: Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Yoshi2-title.png

I do have an opt out list that I add users to, but if they cannot at least be civil about, I will not add them to the list. β^_command 01:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

My policy is just the opposite: if someone is uncivil in response to a notification, I take that as a request to be added to the list. --Carnildo (talk) 01:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

ImageTaggingBot request

Hello. You may (or may not) have noticed that I am one of the admins that deletes many of the images that are tagged by the bot. This may sound like a silly request, but I have noticed that the bot date tags images a bit differently that I would expect. I think that there may be a time zone discrepancy which may be causing the images at the end of a day to be tagged as part of the prior day. Would it be possible for the bot to know when the date changes in UTC, and then start using the next day's category at that time? While it would not have a huge impact, this would keep some percentage of images from being deleted a bit earlier (up to 7 hours?) than they should. Please let me know if some examples would be helpful. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The bot now works on UTC rather than local time. It was a simple enough change to make. --Carnildo 02:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Great! Thanks so much for the prompt response. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Thank you? :-) Danny 01:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

File:E Powell 1.jpg

I took this photo. and noted so on the photo. Why has it been deleted without warning?? --Counter-revolutionary 10:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

User:One Night In Hackney felt it was a blatent copyright violation, and User:Eliz81 (the deleting admin) agreed. If you want to know why they thought that, you'll have to ask them. --Carnildo 10:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Allow me. The deleted image was a grainy image, that looked like it had been scanned from a newspaper (or equivalent). Thus I thought it unlikely that CR held the copyright. This is a high quality version of the exact same image, clearly showing it was a copyright violation uploaded with an improper license. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

On the Zoroastrian Fire Temple of Tehran

Could you kindly let me know on which grounds the above-mentioned image has been deleted? Without any prior warning, ImageRemovalBot has removed this photograph both from Zoroastrianism and Tehran. What is going on actually? Is this an appropriate way to deal with the work of contributors? --BF 05:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Kmccoy deleted the image with an edit summary of "Improper license". I presume this is because the license you put on the image ({{cc-by-3.0}}) was not mentioned at all on the source website. If you want to know more, you'll have to ask him. --Carnildo (talk) 06:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

On the photograph of "Darya Dadvar"

Why have you removed the image of Darya Dadvar? I am just getting fed up with your improper behaviour (yesterday you removed the photograph of the Zoroastrian Fire Temple in Tehran without any prior warning, and now this!) --- that image was given to me by Darya Dadvar herself with the explicit intention to be added to her Wikipedia biography!!! How many times have I to repeat this? --- this particular image has been targeted by your ilk for I don't know how many times and I have for as many times said that that image is perfectly legally there!!! It seems we do not speak the same language --- moreover, the details that I had added to the image made it overwhelmingly clear that everything is absolutely right with that photograph. Could you please restore that image. I have really no time to waste on such frivolous issues as continually running after photographs! --BF 14:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

On the images of Mianeh

You have also removed the images of Mianeh. If you had taken the trouble of checking the source I had given (which you have not), then you would have discovered that the owner of the site has given explicit permission to use his photographs in conjunctions of the copy-right statement that I had attached to the photographs; he also requires his name be given, which I similarly had done. What is going on here is highly unusual and I demand explanation! You have just wasted all my efforts of yesterday for no good reason. I also demand that the images be restored immediately! --BF 14:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Carnildo, your response looks like playing balls: ImageRemovalBot says that it is robot, a piece of computer program, and directs me to you (I did not write to you because I might have been inspired to do so, the information on the "talk" page of ImageRemovalBot directed me to your page) and now you say that you did nothing and I should be asking someone else. There is nothing there that would tell me who did the deleting. There is also no image deletion log (whatever there is contains no information, aside from the statement that deletion has been done by ImageRemovalBot). The images just disappeared! To be frank with you, I am furious at the relaxed attitude that you are taking in regard to the wastage of several hours of my precious time; I used up my free day yesterday to find and upload those images; when I look back, there is nothing left of all my efforts of yesterday, absolutely nothing. This is just unacceptable! You cannot so nonchalantly treat my well-founded protest: someone did delete my entire work of yesterday and your only reaction to my protest is that I should find out who did it! If you intended to affront me, you just did that. Take the example of the photographs of Mianeh. There is no reason, absolutely none, why those two photographs should have been deleted. The website from which I had those two photographs explicitly gave permission to use the photographs for any purpose, provided that two conditions were met: using a creative-common copyright, and mentioning the name of the photographer. I did satisfy both of the requirements. Why on earth should anyone have removed them from Wikipedia at all, whether that person has been you or someone else is utterly irrelevant. The relevant thing is that someone did something against the prevalent rules on Wikipedia, at the expense of my time. Please give attention to my rightful protest, since I am absolutely fed up with the way things are being done on Wikipedia --- this will be the last straw; I will discontinue all my work on Wikipedia and will ask all my friends and colleagues to do the same. It borders on criminality to waste people's time and effort without any body prepared to take even the slightest responsibility. Also, removal of that image of Tehran's Zoroastrian temple is equally a total mystery to me --- all of the photographs just disappeared without a single prior warning. I trust that you will take some positive action to redress the wrongs that have been done to my work of yesterday --- I should also point out that writing all these messages to you, or to someone else for that matter, do not come cheaply, as they also take my time. --BF 20:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello?! You obviously have figured out that I'm the one who deleted the images you uploaded. I've left you messages on your talk page. Why don't you continue your correspondence with me, on my talk page or yours, as Carnildo has suggested several times. Thanks. kmccoy (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Carnildo, the fact is that I do not know who deleted my images! As I wrote you earlier, I have not even had a warning that those images were to be deleted --- I just discovered their removal by chance; the only thing that I knew, and know, is that ImageRemovalBot had done the removing. When you say that I "should find out who did it", you assume that I might have some special ability to find things out out of thin air; how can I find things out, when the images were deleted some two hours after their uploading without any of the editors ever having written to me about possible technical/legal problems with them? Actually I have made my mind: unless this problem gets sorted out by today, I will leave Wikipedia for good --- I cannot keep wasting my time any longer on a project like this; I am just suffering from the shock of seeing my work of several hours vanished from the face of Wikipedia without actually knowing how this could have happened. If you are unable or unwilling to deal with this problem, please pass it on to someone else. Otherwise by tomorrow morning I will clean up my page and leave for good. As it stands, I feel betrayed by Wikipedia. --BF 21:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

If you can't be bothered to read any of the answers people have given you, it's not my problem if you leave. --Carnildo (talk) 21:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You are insulting me by saying that I did not care to read your answers! I have repeatedly told you that I do not know who deleted my images. Your reference to Special:Log/delete was not helpful, as I had already seen the log file from inside the history page of, for instance, Mianeh. These log files do not tell me the usernames of the persons in charge of deleting my images; they solely say that the images were deleted by ImageRemovalBot. Please note that I am not an editor, so that I do not have access to the information concerning things happening above the level of an ordinary contributor. I repeat, as it stands I only know that my uploaded images have been deleted by ImageRemovalBot and this without any prior warning; who initiated the process of deleting these images, and for what reason, have been and remain unknown to me. --BF 22:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should look again. The entries in Special:Log/delete will tell you exactly who deleted the images, and will say nothing about ImageRemovalBot. --Carnildo (talk) 22:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Paula White, Joel Osteen, Marbled Cat, and a few others

These images were correctly retrived and all information was given about the images that were necessary. Some were even my own and I gave full permission for their use on wikipedia.Mcelite (talk) 23:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)mcelite

Which images are you referring to? --Carnildo (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked user

I have deleted on your OrphanBot talk page comments of user:Justiceinwiki which is blocked from editing on wikipedia. If this deleting has been mistake sorry. ---Rjecina 16:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This map from commons which is used on wikipedia is having false copyright tag. Map is copyright protected. ---Rjecina 5:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Please have your bot stop

Would you please tell your bot to stop tagging [[Image:Fgrichards.jpg‎]], [[Image:Fgdale1.jpg]] and [[Image:Fg1954tc.jpg‎]] because they are all in the public domain? Thanks. Otto4711 (talk) 02:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the tag it's putting on the images? It's asking you to mark the images with a copyright tag indicating their state; in the case of the images in question, that would be {{PD-Pre1964}} --Carnildo 05:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Gee now, was informing me of the proper tag really that hard? Otto4711 (talk) 05:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

No, but it's not something the bot can do. Selecting the right tag requires human judgement. --Carnildo 05:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Images

No. I was just doing the right thing. Sorry if that is disruptive to your site. Those tags were added for the myriad of reasons that I gave and removed for no reason at all. No reason was given for their removal.--Gnfgb2 (talk) 16:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Note Gnfgb2 (talk · contribs) is a sock of hard-banned user Primetime (talk · contribs). Any edits he makes to the project can and should be reverted. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Question

per this am i aloud to take a picture of a Dr. Pepper can, and then upload it under {{PD-Self}}? Ctjf83 ^talk 10:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. You might try asking at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --Carnildo (talk) 21:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

File:SleepMyChild.ogg

This image was removed. I had no notification that it was about to be removed, so had not chance to fix whatever the problem was. The image was a sound bite with a fair use template and explanation of why it was necessary to the particular article in which it appeared (Music of Israel). Now that it is gone, I have no way of knowing why it was removed.

Ignore. I figured out what was going on. I fixed it.

Thanks for your help. --Ravpapa (talk) 17:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:FranciscoMignone.JPG

Your OrphanBot says, that there is no source info on the image page, so, I can only say that I'm sorry that your bot is illiterate, but maybe you, Carnildo, can take a look at the image page and read the info. It's all there. I only hope that you are not illiterate too... Kraxler (talk) 14:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

At the time the bot marked the page as "no source", there was indeed no source: you'd blanked the page 27 minutes earlier. --Carnildo (talk) 19:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

There must have been some mix-up with the blanking. It happens sometimes. Sorry.... Kraxler (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Would you take a look?

An image used in the article on the first Bangladeshi pornstar Jazmin, Image:WorshipThisBitch3.jpg, the cover of the DVD that made her the selling point, a first for a Bangladeshi, is up for deletion here. You may be interested to take a look. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 21:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Image deleted

Hi. I uploaded an image, Parterre2.JPG to the Parterre and Ilex crenata pages a while ago. I see that it has recently been deleted. I'm wondering why - could you enlighten me? I was unaware it was even up for deletion, and would have liked to have had a chance to argue for its retention had I been made aware of the proposal to delete it! Cheers Jasper33 (talk) 21:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I should have said that it was ImageRemovalBOt that removed the deleted image, but I don't know who decided to delete it or why. Jasper33 (talk) 21:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

It was deleted because it was moved to Wikimedia Commons, but the person doing the move (SB Johnny) didn't do things quite right, and gave the copy on Commons the wrong name. I've put the image back in the articles and asked SB Johnny to be more careful in the future. --Carnildo (talk) 01:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Yikes! Sorry about that, my computer tends to remove the caps when I download them. I always (well, perhaps not always it seems) check them but I was distracted by looking at Carnildo's other images :). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 10:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that Carnildo. Jasper33 (talk) 16:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Would you be open to recall

I was wondering if you would be open to recall (Category:Wikipedia_administrators_open_to_recall) ? If not, how come? Juppiter (talk) 01:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I stated my recall criteria in my latest RFA. --Carnildo (talk) 01:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Image changed in photoshop

Hi, I was wondering if you could look at the original image verses my new file. I have altered it to the point of the new file no longer even being close to the original. [7] I have read extensively as to copyright law, what exact statues do you want me to cite? Or should I just clam it is a new work all together? As artists do have certin clauses other do not. best, --Duchamps_comb MFA 04:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No amount of editing will keep your work from being a derivative work of the original, meaning the original author's copyright still applies. --Carnildo (talk) 07:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps insted of being a Know-It-All -YOU can go th the US Copyright Office [8]and look at my arguements are valid, or go read GATT.--Duchamps_comb MFA 20:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You should probably read that section of the article you linked entitled "Who May Prepare a Derivative Work?" --Carnildo (talk) 20:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

                              Making Changes to Photographs

[9] The 1976 Copyright Act grants the "fair use" of copyrighted materials for a variety of purposes, for the creation of new works, for educational use, and for personal use.

QUESTION: What if the student or teacher were to change the attributes of a picture.

ANSWER: Yes. This would be considered fair use for education, comment, criticism, or parody. One must inform the audience that changes were made to the photographer's copyrighted work.

Fair use normally entails copying and is of three kinds:

1. Creative fair use by authors who copy from other works to create their own work.

2. Personal fair use by individuals who copy from works for their own learning or entertainment.

3. Educational fair use by teachers, scholars, and students who copy for teaching, scholarship, or learning.

The fair use statute is section 107 of the copyright statute, which is printed in full in Part IV. It provides that "the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies," is not an infringement of copyright. As exemplars of fair use, it lists "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research" and provides four non-exclusive factors to be used in determining whether a use is fair. They are: (1) the purpose of the use, including whether the use is a commercial use or for non-profit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the work; (3) the amount used; and (4) the effect on the marketing of the work. These factors are discussed below.

Fair Use and New Communications Technology The application of new communications technology created by computers developed after Congress enacted the 1976 Copyright Act. Consequently, application of fair use to the transmission of material by computer, e.g. on the Internet, merits special mention. Originally, fair use was a judicial doctrine that one author could make fair use of another author's work in creating his or her own new work. If the amount used was fair, the method or scope of distribution made no difference. If, for example, Author X made a fair use of the work of Author Y, the fact that Author X's book sold a million copies did not divest the material of its fair use status.

Today, fair use is a statutory right that applies to all copyrighted works and all rights of the copyright holder, and whether a use is fair is to be determined by applying the four factors listed in the statute. Since the method of distribution is not one of the statutory factors, it follows that the distribution of material by electronic rather than print media is not the decisive issue. The important point is that if the amount used does not unlawfully interfere with the copyright holder's marketing monopoly, it is a fair use. The Fair Use Doctrine, which was codified in §107 of the 1976 Act, excuses certain infringing uses of a copyrighted workThe exception is for materials put to work under the "fair use rule." This rule recognizes that society can often benefit from the unauthorized use of copyrighted materials when the purpose of the use serves the ends of scholarship, education or an informed public For example, nonprofit educational purposes.--Duchamps_comb MFA 21:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I am about sick and tired of you insulting my intelligence, with snide remarks like “I don't know where you got your ideas of how copyright works, but they're about as wrong as possible.” “Please don't upload any more images until you have a basic understanding of copyright.”

--Look you did not address my valid points on copyright law (see my comment above). What you are saying is wrong (Unless Wickpedia hold users to stricter standards). Your argument is that Fair Use: 1) cannot be used for non-profit educational purposes, 2) cannot be used for news reporting, 3) cannot be used for creative fair use. Your stance is, you cannot use fair use for any reason. That you must be the person who took the photograph, period. And it does not matter haw much change is made to an original. If I have missed something please fill me in. I would like to know your answer to these questions. As well what advanced degrees you hold to be an authority?--Duchamps_comb MFA 04:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

In response to your particular points:

1) Fair use can sometimes be claimed for educational use

2) Fair use can sometimes be claimed for news reporting

3) Fair use can sometimes be claimed for creative works.

There's no "always" here. Fair use is far more complicated than the "always or never" issue you're presenting it as. Some good starting points would be the articles fair use (for the United States law) and Wikipedia:Non-free content (for the Wikipedia policies). --Carnildo (talk) 04:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. But how does a person make a case in the light of "sometimes" being your answer?

Also please note: [10] ,Public domain, this ruling could be argued for a statue in public domain. In which photographic copies of public domain objects could not be protected by copyright because the copies lack originality.--Duchamps_comb MFA 05:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

To determine if something is likely to meet the legal requirements for fair use, evaluate the four factors mentioned in Fair use#Fair use under United States law (a work must meet all four). The only way to be certain is to get sued for copyright infringement and mount a successful defense on the grounds of fair use. To determine if it meets Wikipedia's requirements for use, evaluate the ten points mentioned at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria (it must meet all ten).

Bridgeman v. Corel does not apply here. It only applies to exact copies of two-dimensional works. It's well-established that a photograph of a statue can be copyrighted (there's creative input in selecting the lighting, camera angle, and other elements). --Carnildo (talk) 05:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Image tagging project - relevant to you

Hello, I was asked to notify you and other people that tag images, or run image tagging scripts, of this. Please check out WP:TODAY, which grew off of the recent AN conversation. You will be particularly interested in this section: Wikipedia:TODAY#Early 2008 trial run. Please weigh in on the talk page there? And if possible, let me know who else should know about this? Lawrence Cohen 18:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Ron Paul Revelotion

"ONESITE does not claim ownership" is not the same thing as "The Ron Paul campaign has released copyright to this image". I am afraid your wrong the "Ron Paul campain" DOES NOT HAVE A COPYRIGHT TO THIS IMAGE. It is a slogan, motto, design, independant from the campaign, and uploaded to the site and location I listed for free use. What's the deal?

Does this not grant fair use: "you grant ONESITE the following world-wide, royalty free and non-exclusive license(s): • With respect to all Content including, games, web logs, terms of service, graphics, audio or video you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Service, the perpetual, irrevocable and fully sublicensable license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, publicly perform and publicly display such Content (in whole or in part) and to incorporate such Content into other works in any format or medium now known or later developed." --Duchamps_comb MFA 03:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it does not. It's a rights grab by ONEHOST, and since Wikipedia is not ONEHOST, it has nothing to do with us. Anyone who uses those guys to host their website is clueless or an idiot. --Carnildo (talk) 04:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Image removal bot

Hi, just ran across a small glitch where the bot commented out brackets which closed the {{puic}} tag placed in the middle of an infobox[11]. It's a minor concern, but the situation might come up again. Cheers, ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 11:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it to my attention. --Carnildo (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Viva Las Vegas.jpg

Hi. The above quoted image, which your bot has removed from two different pages because of the alleged lack of a source, does quote one in the fair use rationales. Also, for some strange reason, you have notified me as the original uploader rather than the people who worked on the licences and fair use rationales.

Considering all of the above, I'd be tempted to add the image back, but dare I do this?

Best wishes, <KF> 19:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• On December 29, User:Save Us 229 decided the image didn't have a good enough source, marked it as such, and notified you since you were the original uploader.
• On January 2, since the image was going to be deleted, OrphanBot removed the image from pages where it was used. It did not notify you because you had already been notified, and it did not notify anyone else, since the original uploader is usually the only person who knows where an image came from.
• On January 3, User:Anakin101 removed the "no source" tag. However, he did not put it back in the articles it was removed from.
• On January 15, BJBot noticed it was an unused non-free image, and marked it for deletion, notifying you.

If you think the image is suitable for use on Wikipedia, you should probably put it back. --Carnildo (talk) 20:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much. <KF> 21:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Removing a di-no source tag doesn't sound like a reasonable thing for me to do. It sounds like vandalism. I wonder why I did that. ??? • Anakin ^(talk) 02:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Badshahi_Mosque_July_1_2005_pic32_by_Ali_Imran.jpg

Hi, the image above was removed by the bot. I would like to have it put back since I took it myself and have licensed it under GFDL and Creative Commons. The same image is also available in the commons here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Badshahi_Mosque_July_1_2005_pic32_by_Ali_Imran.jpg. So, if it's ok with you, can I put it back? Pale blue dot (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Feel free to put it back. --Carnildo (talk) 23:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Phew, that's a relief! Thanks so much. Pale blue dot (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Why did you delete

the image Birth of Psyche at Einar Jonsson? it was mine, it said so etc. Usually I get told if one of my images is up to go down. Should I just pull all my images out of the article as I did at Lee Lawrie? Save you the trouble? Carptrash (talk) 03:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

If you're referring to Image:BirthOfPsycheEJ.jpg, it was deleted by User:East718 because it was marked as a non-free image, but did not have an explanation as to why it met Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. User:BetacommandBot notified you about this on January 1. --Carnildo (talk) 04:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. January 1 was not a particularly sharp day for me. All the images in the Einar Jonsson article were added in 2004 when the templates were . . ... not as automatic. Probably this holds true for all the images there. Might as well remove them too. But this was not your doing, tho the bot led me here, so is not your concern. Thanks again for the reply. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 16:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Your bot may be malfunctioning

Hello Carnildo. I noticed that your bot may be malfunctioning. Why? It placed the nocopyrightholder tag on Image:Traditional korean mask 1.jpg when it was given the GFDL licence. Going a bit further back in OrphanBot's contribs, I noticed that it tagged Image:The fortress of Shumen in 1981.jpg as well, even though it explicitly stated that the user created the image. This is a serious problem as many admins would delete the article without looking at the evidence and I think that a block of your bot may be in hand. Please relpy on my talk page. Editorofthewiki (talk) 23:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:The fortress of Shumen in 1981.jpg was marked as unsourced by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, and OrphanBot trusts humans to know what they're talking about. Image:Traditional korean mask 1.jpg is tagged with the {{GFDL}} copyright tag, which does not specify who the copyright holder is, so ImageTaggingBot was correct in marking it as unsourced. --Carnildo (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Editorofthewiki (talk) 23:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

thx

thx--Seriousspender (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

removal of image that is not deleted

I noticed that your image removal bot removed an image that was not deleted (see here). Can you explain this? StuartDD _{contributions} 11:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The image was deleted and then restored again. The bot removed it before it was undeleted. 80.202.107.158 (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Mirth & Girth

I wasn't really sure what your bot was asking for, as the requested info was in the summary and rationale for the image. On the off-chance that the bot missed it, I clarified it further. If there are subsequent issues, please contact me, and I will be happy to act to resolve the issue. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:Non-free promotional discussion

Hello, Carnildo. Since you recently contributed to the lively deletion discussion for Template:Non-free promotional, I thought I'd let you know that I've continued the discussion about this template at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Template:Non-free promotional. The result of the deletion discussion was to keep the template, but there are still some questions about whether the current template serves a useful purpose and how to prevent its misapplication. Please contribute to the discussion if you are interested. —Bkell (talk) 17:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphan Bot

Apparently it just causes anger. Ever thought about taking it down? HPJoker ^{Leave me a message} 15:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

How would that change anything? Almost all the anger is directed against the policy the bot is helping enforce, rather than against the bot itself. --Carnildo (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Image undeletion

I undeleted a bunch of images to write NFCC rationales for them ostensibly and redeleted the rest - but it looks like I missed a few. Thanks for the poke, I'll go through them again. east.718 at 03:09, January 30, 2008

Bogus deletion

Image:Vw.png was a mis-upload (because some a$!@$% decided to use uppercase .PNG), and when I noticed, I reuploaded Image:Vw.PNG (to keep the file history and license info!). The Visa Waiver Program article continued to link to Vw.PNG, but your bot erroneously removed Vw.PNG in favor of Vw.png and now the metadata is lost. -j.engelh (talk) 11:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

ImageRemovalBot

I notice you've already had several complaints that ImageRemovalBot removes deleted images entirely, even where an alternative previously existed - either a free image or a placeholder like "Replace this image male.svg." Would it be possible for the bot, instead of blanking the "| image=" field, to run through the edit history a bit to see if there's an alternative? --Hyperbole (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

How would the bot be able to tell a valid alternative from hello.jpg? How would it be able to tell if the Image:Picture.jpg in the article history is the same as the current image by that name? The current behavior may not be perfect, but it does mean that the bot won't put improper images into infoboxes. --Carnildo (talk) 00:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Easy, don't use a bot and do it by hand like the rest of us. This project benefits more from quality then it does quantity. Your bot, while it may be enforcing policy, is bordering on violating WP:POINT. Policy should never be enforced for policy's sake. Article quality has suffered greatly since the capricious automated removal of images began. The onus is on you, the remover, to check if there is anything you can do to prevent massive disruption to article quality. If this can't be achieved with a bot, then do it by hand. It is as simple as that. Dragon695 (talk) 05:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

ImageRemovalBot isn't enforcing any policy at all. It's merely removing images from articles after someone deletes them. If you want to keep the images from being deleted in the first place, you should change the deletion policy, most likely the criteria for speedy deletion. If you want image redlinks kept in articles, I'm not sure where you should go, but the manual of style might be a good starting point. --Carnildo (talk) 06:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

"Easy, don't use a bot and do it by hand like the rest of us." Excellent suggestion. I think that bots should be outlawed on Wikipedia. All they do is allow lazy editors like Carnildo to establish themselves as some kind of uber-editor. I should create a bot that automatically reverts every edit that Carnildo's bots do. This is not what Wikipedia is about. -- Elaich ^talk 07:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Super Bowl XLII

Please don't vandalise Super Bowl XLII, thanks. —Neuropedia (talk) 06:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Bot tagging public domain image

Hi, I notice that OrphanBot has tagged Image:BBC satellite regions.png for deletion as having no source information, but it's quite clear that the image has a "pd-self" tag and is created by the author. I assume that this a malfunction with the bot, because surely it should't be doing this - isn't that only used for fairuse images, or images without a tag? Bob talk 10:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

OrphanBot didn't tag it, it was tagged by User:Calliopejen1 on January 30, and OrphanBot trusts that humans know what they're talking about when they tag images. --Carnildo (talk) 11:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for fixing the Nobel Prize image. *** Crotalus *** 19:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

ImageRemovalBot does not remove image captions

from Infobox person. caption
MickMacNee (talk) 20:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

ImageRemovalBot doesn't remove captions because it can't reliably find them. Some infoboxes have more than one captioned image, and there's no way for the bot to tell which caption goes with which image. --Carnildo (talk) 22:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Copyright status template

I've put the copyright tag on my images, yet the copyright status template is still there. How do I remove it? Skizzo3 00:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Click "Edit this page", and remove the mess of markup starting with "{{di-no license". --Carnildo (talk) 00:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Blue Network

Could you please reverse the deletion of the picture you did on the 19th? I was not given any sort of a chance to make corrections or the like, and no indication was given as to why the picture was deleted. Can you please reverse and/or explain? Eric O. Costello (talk) 02:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC) EDIT: I've actually reuploaded the picture, with a fresh explanation of why it is fair use. Eric O. Costello (talk) 02:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

ImageTaggingBot

ImageTaggingBot did what I was about to do on the talk page of user Jaideepmacharla. I noticed that the third sentence starts, "We requires this information...". Is this bot from Brooklyn? Eleven even (talk) 18:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiproject Homeschooling

Hi Carnildo!

I noticed you were a member of WikiProject Alternative Education, and thought you might be interested in WikiProject Homeschooling. In this "WikiProject," we have been together working on the collaboration of Homeschooling-related articles. As a member, I really hope you can join, and let me know if you need any help signing up or with anything else. If you have any questions about the project you can ask at the project's talk page. Cheers! RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 23:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

TRNC State Arms

This image: image:New-TRNC-coa.GIF

The state arms of the TRNC have been ammended to look like this. However, attempts to update the relevent files have been kicked back. I was under the impression that Wikipedia welcomes those who try and bring in updated information Expatkiwi

The problem with the image is that you haven't provided any information on what it's an image of or where the image came from. You also need to indicate the copyright status of the image. --Carnildo (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

On WIKIPEDIA, the state arms of all countries are present, so perhaps this should be referred to them as obviously I'm not competant enough to do it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Expatkiwi (talk • contribs) 00:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Photos

Hey there, I noticed you listed yourself as open to requests for photos, and was curious if you felt like venturing around the Inland Northwest a bit to help fill in the photos at List of Registered Historic Places in Washington. I've done most of Spokane, and Ferry County is almost filled in, but pretty much the rest of Eastern Washington is devoid of imagery. Cheers! Murderbike (talk) 22:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll see what I can do. --Carnildo (talk) 02:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

5 = 7 ?

plz control yr wayward bots deleting things w/in 5 days, not 7 -- plz do not delete images on queue to be reviewed -- kthx! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Graecoromanist (talk • contribs) 16:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

My bots don't delete things. OrphanBot removes images from articles after four days to give anyone watching the article a heads-up that the image is about to be deleted. --Carnildo (talk) 20:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Commenting out the image is a good idea. It helped me with Image:Buenos Forum.jpg. Astronaut (talk) 17:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Buenos Forum.jpg

Hi, Your bot removed the above image from the Buenos Aires Forum article. I have provided source and licensing info for the image and reverted your bot's change to the article. Is there anything else I need to do to be sure the image stays on the article? Astronaut (talk) 17:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. --Carnildo (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

ImageTaggingBot

Hey, Carnildo. I'm not sure if you're aware, but ImageTaggingBot's been blocked for a while now and its services are missed. :-( east.718 at 20:25, March 4, 2008

There was a recent change in how MediaWiki handles non-existant pages in logs that prevents ImageTaggingBot from correctly identifying an image's uploader if that person doesn't have a userpage. The fix requires a complete re-write of the bot to use api.php rather than screen-scraping, and I haven't had time to do it. --Carnildo (talk) 21:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

If you don't mind, could you please email the bot to me so I can take a crack at fixing it? ITB is one of the most useful bots out there and I'd hate for it to stay down for an extended period. east.718 at 02:42, March 5, 2008

There's an easy fix, but I'd be chasing a moving target. Looking at the bot's logs, I'd have had to have changed the bot's code at least twice in the past week, and each time it went wrong, it would have left 50-100 invalid talkpages before I could catch the failure. --Carnildo (talk) 05:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Breaks infoboxes

This bot seems to break infoboxes in the process of deleting images from them. See for example Androsynth. I've been forced to repair these templates by sticking one of the available blank images (eg, Blank300.png) in place of the deleted image. Clayhalliwell (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It's the infobox template that's broken. There's a way to design templates that works properly if the "image" parameter isn't specified, and most infoboxes use it. I'm not familiar with advanced template syntax, but you could ask at the Village Pump. --Carnildo (talk) 22:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, someone has fixed the template in question. All is well. Too bad about BetacommandBot causing all these mass image deletions. Clayhalliwell (talk) 05:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscience discretionary sanctions

Hi! As somebody who commented on a January proposal to place all articles related to homeopathy on article probation, I would greatly appreciate your input on a new proposal to help combat disruption that would scrap the probation and implement discretionary sanctions. I apologize for any intrusion, but this is to my knowledge the first time sanctions of this nature have been attempted to be enforced by the community, so I feel that a wide range of opinions is necessary. Thank you in advance for any comments you may make. east718 (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Alexz Johnson Photos - Thanks to You and Your Bot!

Thanks to you and your bot for removing unlicenced photos in the Alexz Johnson article (where I have been the main writer/editor). I went to a lot of trouble to play by the rules and to get properly licenced photos from the production company Epitome Pictures only to find that someone was replacing the top right photo with an unlicenced one because Alexz had recently "changed her look" - very frustrating. But it turns out that the person who is doing this is losing the battle with your bot - the bot always wins!

So kudos to you and your bot - right on!

JD Fan (talk) 02:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggested changes in the WMF privacy policy

Hello,

I posted some suggestions for changes in the WMF privacy policy at the WMF site: [12]. The gist of the suggestions is to institute a requirement for notifying those registered users whose identifying info is being sought by subpoenas in third-party lawsuits. These suggestions are motivated in large part by a discussion that took place in January 2008 at the Village Pump (Policy) page [13] in relation to an incident where identifying IP data of sixteen Wikipedia users was released in response to such a subpoena. I also left a note about these proposal at Village Pump, WP:Village_pump_(policy)#Suggestions_for_changes_in_the_WMF_privacy_policy. Since you have participated in the January Village Pump discussion, I hope that you will contribute to the discussion of the current suggestions at the WMF website, [14]. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 12:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Bot

Why is your bot putting <!-- --> tags around images with no sources? How are we suppose to know they are unsourced if your bot hides the images? Ctjf83Talk 04:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The images have already been marked with a tag such as {{no source}}, and the uploader has been notified. It's simply removing them from articles in a way that will let editors know what used to be there, but that won't make a mess when the images are deleted. It also gives anyone watching the article a chance to fix the problem. --Carnildo (talk) 05:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

How are people fixing the article suppose to know the image doesn't have a tag, if the image is gone?! Ctjf83Talk 19:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Either by reading the edit summary when the bot removes the image, or by reading the comment the bot leaves behind. --Carnildo (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Glaiza de Castro image

Why did you delete the Glaiza de Castro image? I took the picture myself and released it under GFDL. Doberdog (talk) 06:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Which image are you referring to? --Carnildo (talk) 08:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Glaiza de Castro.jpg Doberdog (talk) 10:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That image, Image:Glaiza de Castro.jpg, is still there. I've never touched it, and neither have any of my bots. --Carnildo (talk) 10:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Please check the Glaiza de Castro history page. It says User:ImageRemovalBot removed deleted image. Doberdog (talk) 10:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If you're referring to this edit, ImageRemovalBot is removing Image:Glaiza-de-castro.JPG, not your image, which is Image:Glaiza de Castro.jpg. --Carnildo (talk) 19:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Good. I'm re-editing the page so that my picture would show. Thanks. Doberdog (talk) 01:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alternative education

There has been a proposal brought forward [15] regarding a merger of WikiProject Alternative Education, and as a member of that project, I am notifying you. Thanks. Twenty Years 13:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal Of James Barber Image

There was no discussion on the James Barber talk page or any that I seen about a the image being up for removal. Until such discussion happens, the image needs to be put back. Mr. C.C. (talk) 05:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay nevermind, my bad I re-read it. Do you know why the image was removed? Mr. C.C. (talk) 05:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

If you're referring to Image:James.JPG, it was speedy-deleted by User:Master of Puppets for being a blatent copyright violation. --Carnildo (talk) 07:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Copyright

"Wrong. In the United States, copyright lasts a very long time. As a rule of thumb, everything published in 1923 or later is copyrighted." - actually, that isn't really the case. Would you like me to find the "90% of stuff never had its copyright renewed" thing, or do you know that already? Carcharoth (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It's easier to say "everything since 1923" than to try to educate someone in the intricacies of what expires when, not to mention the difficulties of determining whether or not a work had its copyright renewed. The target audience for the FAQ is people who have only a vague idea of what copyright is. --Carnildo (talk) 20:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Image bots

I'm currently trying to get a list of image bots. Both non-free image work and others. Could you help out? A start is User:BetacommandBot, User:Non-Free Content Compliance Bot, User:STBotI, User:ImageResizeBot, User:ImageRemovalBot, User:MiszaBot, and so on. I haven't added the Commons transfer one yet - can you remember the name. Feel free to add more here. I want to get a list for WP:NFCC-C (please feel free to edit that or put stuff on the talk page). Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 15:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I've got User:ImageTaggingBot (currently broken), User:ImageRemovalBot, User:OrphanBot, and User:FairuseBot (superseeded by CSD I7). --Carnildo (talk) 21:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks like you are testing FairuseBot to restart it. I'm confused now (and I guess some of the arbitrators are as well over at the Betacommand 2 arbitration case). I had the impression that BetacommandBot was really the only bot dealing with non-free image, at least over the past year. Is that still correct, and would you say most of the work by other bots was done before this last year (or last two years), or is being restarted or newly proposed now? I get the impression (please correct me if I'm wrong) that you have a good grasp on the history of parts (all?) of the image work done on Wikipedia. Since overall recent planning and strategy seems to have been lacking or not clearly laid out or documented (at least on-wiki), would you be able to help document (very briefly) what you think happened over the past two years? Who did what, where and when, sort of thing? I would dig through the history myself, but as I only really got involved in August 2007, I don't know that much about the previous history. When did OrphanBot start? When did Miszabot starting zapping "no sources" images? And so on. It took me a long time to really get a handle on some of these things, and I think those that do image work sometimes forget how little of the overall picture is seen by those who don't work with images. As well as documenting the history for its own sake, I'm thinking that it would help the arbitrators get a handle on the history (presuming that the previous Betacommand case and other 'image' cases - eg. Abu badali - don't already do this). I know this might seem like a lot to ask, but what I'm really after is for people to jot down what their memories are of what happened, or what they personally thought happened. I'd be happy to do the work digging round to track down links and looking at what actually happened. Would you be able to contribute anything? Carcharoth (talk) 10:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

A quick history lesson:

• Back in September 2005 or so, it was decreed that images with no source or copyright information could be speedy-deleted. The slowest part of this process was removing the images from any articles they were in, so I wrote OrphanBot to handle that part. When people started complaining that their images were being deleted without warning, I added notification to OrphanBot's duties. I used to take a lot of heat for doing this: you can see some of it at User:OrphanBot/honors.
• Prior to about June 2006, there was a project to deal with untagged images, which got lists of images to work with from the Toolserver. When the toolserver broke down, I added tagging of uploads to OrphanBot's tasks. I later split this off to the ImageTaggingBot account. Originally, one of the things OrphanBot would check for was missing fair-use rationales, but the difficulty of doing this reliably meant that the bot was only tagging one or two images a day.
• Starting in late 2005, a bot called "Roomba" would mark orphaned fair-use images for speedy deletion. Later, this task was taken up by "Fritzbot".
• At that time, getting rid of fair-use images was almost impossible: you had to go through IFD, and you could count on someone popping up to defend the image. I wrote FairuseBot to do an end-run around the deletion policy: it would remove any images marked as "fair use disputed" from articles, Roomba would mark the image as "orphaned fair use", and if nobody showed up to defend the image in a week, it would be deleted. This became unneeded when CSD I7 was adopted.
• Sometime in the past two years, the "File links" information for deleted images became reliable. I created ImageRemovalBot to make deleting images easier: the admin now only needs to decide if the image is eligable for deletion, and doesn't need to go to the effort of removing it from articles. --Carnildo (talk) 19:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Since admin bots are frowned upon, the only people who could say for certain who's operating one or when they started are the bot operators themselves.

Personally, I'm amazed at how much image-use policy has changed in the past three years. It used to be that I could go through the list of Featured Article candidates and object to three-quarters of them on the grounds that they used unsourced, no-license, or non-commercial-use images, and I could occasionally get someone to remove a non-free image on the grounds that it was easily replaceable. More often, I would get bitched at for being too picky. Today, if I object at all, it's on the grounds that a non-free image isn't significant enough or that there are too many of them. --Carnildo (talk) 19:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all that! :-) I'm not going to be around for a few days, but just wanted to pop a reply down here. Carcharoth (talk) 01:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Photograph of Bahram Bayzai

On whose authority have you removed the above-mentioned photograph? This is absolute anarchy what is happening here on Wikipedia!!! It is sickening! I hereby demand that the photograph be restored forthwith! I had obtained written permission from Payvand.com for the display of this photograph on Wikipedia (the permission along with all the necessary details were properly displayed on the photograph page!!!). You cannot just annul my efforts by your whim! --BF 03:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

If you're referring to Image:Bahram_Beyzai.jpg, it was deleted by User:East718. You'll have to ask him if you want to know exactly why it was deleted, but as far as I can tell, it was deleted for not being a free content image: simple permission for Wikipedia to use an image isn't good enough. --Carnildo (talk) 03:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Stop removing my image from List of U.S. state license plates

Your bot has removed my image, Image:Louisiana License Plate (PSJ 036).JPG from the article List of U.S. state license plates three times now. The image is properly sourced, properly licensed, and was produced by myself. In addition, it is a relevant and good example of a Louisiana license plate for the article. Please do not remove this image from the article again. --Mr. Brown (talk) 19:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure you're talking about the correct image? None of my bots has ever touched that one. --Carnildo (talk) 20:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

My apologies - I was looking at the wrong revision. --Mr. Brown (talk) 22:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Happy First Day of Spring!

Happy First Day of Spring!

A Beautiful Cherry Tree in Spring Bloom

Theres nothing like seeing a field full of spring flowers.

Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! ~~~~

If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Autumn not Spring then I wish you a happy First Day of Autumn {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}!
To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Spring}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Bot response time

Whats the response time of the bot that comments out images from an article? This image Image:Unibersidad ng Pilipinas.png should only be in 1 or 2 of the articles its currently in. So I was thinking of opening the pages it should be in, deleting it, letting the bot comment it out of all the articles, and then undoing the bot only for those it should be in, but that would only make sense if the bot is always running. MBisanz ^talk 21:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

ImageRemovalBot runs every hour, starting at about 35 minutes past the hour. How long it takes to get to a particular image depends on how many images were deleted -- it could be as little as a few minutes, or more than two hours. --Carnildo (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. That a low enough lag time for my method to work. Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 22:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

No free image removed

or or

Hi, instead of just removing images could the bot return the previous image if one of the above, or if that is to difficult, leave the more generic image? You may need to size it. ChessCreator (talk) 01:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Far too difficult to get right. "Previous image" is a very difficult concept for a computer (try looking at a diff over a large number of revisions sometime), and a generic "no free image" is frequently inappropriate. --Carnildo (talk) 03:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Dummy315.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Dummy315.png. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. The following images also have this problem:

• Image:Dummy317.png
• Image:Dummy316.png

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

re Operation Rolling Thunder images

Well I guess I'm just about de-Wikified. Just as I got through wrangling with another photo editor (this one was a human, not a bot) concerning some of the same images. I guess the allocation of U.S. government photographic images taken from a U.S. government history were not attribution enough for this A-Class article. Oh well, FIGMO. I've got hard copies of all the articles I have written and do not really give a shit whether anyone else will enjoy them for free. Just about time to contact my publisher. You might want to check my user page and find 14 other A-Class articles that you can remove the images from, all of which, by the way, are U.S. government images. Good luck in the multiplex (ie. moronic) Wikiverse. RM Gillespie (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

If you're referring to Image:RTsky.jpg, Image:RTPY.jpg, Image:RTMiG.jpg, and Image:RT4.jpg, they were deleted because you didn't say where they were from. "From the US military" isn't good enough, because there's no way to verify the statement. An adequate source would be the name of the book you got it from, or the URL of the webpage, or an archive catalog number, or something similar. If you'll provide that information, I'll restore the images. --Carnildo (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

ImageRemovalBot question

Am I missing something? Why does the bot leave the image in the code of the article, but commented out instead of deleting it altogether? I can't figure out what the advantage would be to leaving it there performing no function. Please respond on my talk or else alert me that you have responded here. Thanks. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Leaving the image commented out lets editors know what used to be there, and it makes it easy to put the image back if it's undeleted or replaced. --Carnildo (talk) 07:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Template wording

Saw the link to User:OrphanBot/nfcc10c and was wondering if you'd be willing to link the word "explanation" to Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline? Also, if the bot will be substing that page (as opposed to having the message on the server), you'll probably want to at least move-protect it. MBisanz ^talk 07:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. As for protecting the template, once the bot goes live, the message will be full-protected, just like all the other messages that my bots use. --Carnildo (talk) 07:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Awarding Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Aprils fools day was a blast. Loads of users lightened up to have good old fashion fun. I want to thank you for taking part in editing this page in particular and even though I may not know you, embrace the same talk pages, or even edit with you in the near future, I'd like to award you this Barnstar for making Wikipedia a fun environment in which to contribute. Until next year. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 13:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images

Would you consider having OrphanBot orphan images in the PUI subpages that are over two weeks old? (Please reply on my talk page.) Stifle (talk) 17:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Why should the bot remove them? If the image is kept, then someone will need to put it back, while if the image is deleted, ImageRemovalBot can remove it after deletion. --Carnildo (talk) 23:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot about ImageRemovalBot. Thanks for reminding me. Stifle (talk) 09:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)`

RE:Di-no licence template

I just wanted to let you know that the date isn't displaying properly in the template since the last change.Shinerunner (talk) 23:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong about it? --Carnildo (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

On images I've recently tagged, it displays (Unless this information is added to this page, the image will be deleted one week after {{{day}}} {{{month}}} 2008). I've tried refreshing my browser with no change.Shinerunner (talk) 23:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

How are you adding the tag? --Carnildo (talk) 00:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

These are images that I tagged with the previous version of the tag earlier today 1-2 hours ago. Here's an example Image:IMG 0261.jpg Shinerunner (talk) 00:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you applying the tag directly? Using {{subst:nld}}? Using a userscript? Using an external program? Using something else? --Carnildo (talk) 00:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Applying it directlyShinerunner (talk) 00:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I've fixed the problem, so the date should start displaying properly over the next few minutes. --Carnildo (talk) 00:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank You!!! 00:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Co-ordinating image work

I'm currently thinking of trying to improve co-ordination of image work on Wikipedia. Would you have any suggestions or advice? Carcharoth (talk) 10:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

A few:

• Coordinate messages between the bots, to reduce the number of notifications people get. FairuseBot has a method of keeping all the notices it delivers in a single section; I'll be expanding that to OrphanBot and ImageTaggingBot soon. If other bots adopt the system, it'll end the floods of messages some people are getting.
• Bot messages should direct image-related questions to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, rather than bot owners trying to answer the questions themselves.
• Anyone writing a new image bot needs to make sure that it won't interfere with any of the existing image bots.

I'm sure I'll think of more in the future. --Carnildo (talk) 22:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Any ideas on a suitable venue or page name for this co-ordination. I have a few lists of projects and bots and people that I'd like to dump in one place. The bot list is at Wikipedia talk:BAG#Image bots - I'm sure this is incomplete. The project list (also incomplete) is (somewhere) here. As for people, I'm sure they will add themselves in due course! :-) I'm actually hoping that those that do lots of image work will talk more and find common ground, at least on-wiki. Carcharoth (talk) 19:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

PS. I've been talking to User:MECU over the past few days. What is your view on his rigorous enforcement of sourcing. Do you favour using deletion tags or just tagging and hoping someone eventually improves the sources? I think some of the tagging for deletion is borderline, and, as can be seen from User talk:MECU, annoys some people. Carcharoth (talk) 19:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

ImageRemovalBot problem?

Could you have a look at this edit by ImageRemovalBot and see if you can explain it? As far as I can see, the image was never deleted, so ImageRemovalBot shouldn't have touched the image. This was raised here. Carcharoth (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hang on. I was looking at the deletion log for the article, not the image! The image deletion log does show a deletion, so it's not your bot. Sorry about that. Carcharoth (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Thule Society

An article that you have been involved in editing, Thule Society, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thule Society. Thank you. LeadSongDog (talk) 17:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

FairuseBot messages

Hi,

An image I uploaded got tagged by FairuseBot. It wasn't immediately clear from reading the message exactly why, or what to check for, and this took me a few minutes to identify. I'm thinking that an inexperienced user might have felt it was "wrong" because it wasn't obvious why the message was placed, and that an improved message might help avoid this. May I suggest the following?

==Image:Tree.png which you uploaded needs attention== Thanks for uploading Image:Tree.png. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but this bot has detected that some of the requirements for free use on Wikipedia have not been met. The image must be used on at least one article (NFCC#7), and its page must also provide a separate free-use rationale and article link for each article it will be used on (NFCC#10c). Can you please check: The image is used on at least one actual article (check here), YES That every article it is used on, has a non-free use rationale on the image's description page, CANNOT TELL That every article it is used on is named and correctly linked from its description page. NO If you have any queries about this please ask here. This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you!

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The bot shouldn't have left the message in the first place. The bot's supposed to be able to fix links that point to redirects or disambiguation pages, and I was in the middle of figuring out why it hadn't handled that image properly when you fixed the link. --Carnildo (talk) 08:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

currency

Image:1 baht Reverse.png was tagged by fairusebot, but it's marked as GFDL. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It's also marked as {{currency}}, which is why the bot tagged it. --Carnildo (talk) 19:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

That's what I suspected (see the title of this section). It might be worthwhile to filter out the currency images that are also tagged with a free license tag. The currency tag is there because of the "other restrictions" warning I think. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I have ran into the same issue, its there because not all currency is PD (free). if it is in fact a PD image then license it that way. if its tagged as currency and has problems go ahead and tag it. β^{_{command 2}} —Preceding comment was added at 02:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use bot suggestion

I just got notified about a non-compliant fair use image, but the only involvement I had in it was uploading a much-reduced resolution version of it to go halfway to complying with the fair use rationale already provided for it. Maybe if you have the bot compare the aspect ratios of the current image and past images, and perhaps look for 'resolution' in the upload summary of the newest one, then you could identify where this has taken place. Just a suggestion. - Mark 01:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added to the keywords that the bot looks for when determining who the original uploader is. --Carnildo (talk) 04:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Symbolic snake

Your automated message is extremely unclear regarding the above image.

• The image in question is on a book cover which is of the un-copyrighted, notorious, antisemitic text which goes by many titles, one of which is the Protocols of Zion.
• This hateful literature is never copyrighted.
• The metaphor of the so-called symbolic snake is a creation of the anonymous editors & illustrators of this literary forgery.
• I would appreciate you personal assistance in this matter.
• I have no idea - from the automated comment - what is required by Wikipedia regarding such images.

--Ludvikus (talk) 16:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Also, it would be useful if your Bot dated its comment which it left on my User Page. Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem because the article is renamed

Hi Carnildo. Can I assume that all images in the article Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Austria) now have the right description? I checked some of them randomly and it looks like. If you answer is yes, then THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!! Miguel.mateo (talk) 22:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the links for images in Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Austria); if the images are used in any other articles, you'll still need to add additional rationales for those articles. --Carnildo (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I answered myself this question, after clicking on "show Bot edits" in my watchlist. And yes, I will work the other images out today, there is not that many. Thanks again for the huge help! You rock!!! Miguel.mateo (talk) 22:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:21056r.jpg

What exactly is the problem at this image? Your bot offers no clue. Wouldn't a bot that fixes problems be much better than one that just blindly attempts to interpret non-compliance, and flag them for deletion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

What's unclear about the tag? I read it as saying the image doesn't have a fair-use rationale for its use in List of United States Senators from New Jersey. The bot fixes as much as it can, but until someone invents strong AI, it won't be possible for a bot to write a fair-use rationale. --Carnildo (talk) 03:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Smile!

Dave1185 (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

FairuseBot backlink fixing

I just found out about the existence of FairuseBot after seeing a couple of edits by it on my watchlist, and I must compliment you on the excellent link-fixing feature. However, it seems to have failed in the case of Image:A2600 Battlezone.png, even though, to a human, it's clear from the edit history of Battlezone that the content formerly at that title was indeed recently moved to Battlezone (1980 video game). Do you think it might be practical to make the bot recognize cases such as this one and update the links automatically? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It should: since it's a combination of a redirect and a disambiguation page, and the bot can handle either, it shouldn't be too hard to get the bot to handle both at the same time. --Carnildo (talk) 21:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate lack-of-fair-use-rationale warning added by FairuseBot

User:FairuseBot added a no-fair-use template after User:STBotI had already added one.[16] Jecowa (talk) 00:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

They're not quite complaining about the same thing: STBotI is marking the image as lacking a fair-use rationale, while FairuseBot is marking it as not having a rationale that links to the page it's used on. Even so, I've modified the bot so it won't do that sort of tagging in the future. --Carnildo (talk) 04:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your recent comment on the Village Pump Proposal Page...

It absolutely cracked me up when you repeated EVIL!!. Thank you for brightening my day. :) Zidel333 (talk) 19:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Arab Gulf

I was going to link the word vandalize to Wikipedia:Vandalism and was going to rename "Persian Sea" to Persian Gulf. Thank you for protecting the page.--208.102.210.163 (talk) 00:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Wait! You also redirected it back to Arabian Gulf. Arab Gulf is a legitamate stub, as far as I can tell. Why do so many insist on either vandalizing or reddirecting without disscussion. I have yet to even see a defense for the redirect of Arab Gulf to Arabian Gulf! Do you have a reason for redirecting Arab Gulf? Please respond.--208.102.210.163 (talk) 02:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Fairusebot

Erm... why did it delete the image out of Predator?

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Predator_%28alien%29&curid=7467334&diff=208686445&oldid=208579856 --Marhawkman (talk) 05:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The image had a fair-use rationale for its use in Predator (film), but not for its use in Predator (alien). A non-free image needs a rationale for each article it's used in. --Carnildo (talk) 08:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

In light of your comment at WP:AN#User:Daniel Lièvre...

Recently, a Wikipedian with ~7500 largely constructive edits was blocked indefinitely after they created userboxes reading "This (male/female) wikipedian loves (girls/boys), as opposed to loving (boys/girls)." (User:VigilancePrime/Templates/Girllover and User:VigilancePrime/Templates/Boylover), perhaps as an April Fools joke. Some discussion is at Wikipedia:Pedophile_topic_mentorship#User:VigilancePrime. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 15:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Unblock of User:VigilancePrime

Looks like you've unblocked this user. I let Dmcdevit know, it didn't look like you had. My understanding is that users who are self-professed pedophilia advocates (including those who use self-made girllover userboxes) are blocked on principle. I guess you disagree? Avruch ^T 19:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You're new here, aren't you? :-) Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war, especially the evidence page, might be useful reading. --Carnildo (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's inappropriate and erroneous for you to imply that VigilancePrime is a "self-professed paedophilia advocate." He has worked amicably with editors on both sides of paedophilia-related disputes to acheive neutrality, and certainly hasn't advocated for paedophilia (neither in those userboxes, which he in fact did not use, or on talkpages). In this edit he expresses the opinion that paedophiles 'need help' for their condition. That's far from a PPA standpoint. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 20:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the relevance of that particular arbitration case. I'm not all that new, and I've seen a number of editors blocked on the "pedophilia advocacy" basis. I haven't seen the userbox itself, since its deleted and I'm not an administrator, but I know that Dmcdevit is and from the broken link I can see its called 'girllover.' Are you saying that either the userbox did not profess something in line with pedophilia advocacy or that this isn't a blockable offense? And did you happen to discuss it with Dmcdevit? Avruch ^T 20:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

And to your comments, AnotherSolipsist, how do you explain VP's edits to this page? Avruch ^T 20:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I guess it is a moot point now - Morven has reblocked and directed questions to ArbCom. Avruch ^T 21:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

They tend to do that. The only way to discuss pedophilia-related blocks on-wiki is to do it fast before the ArbCom notices. --Carnildo (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious, as someone who was turned off by the Great Userbox War and it's fallout, I fail to understand why ArbCom has a stick shoved up their ass about this tangential issue? Wikipedia is much to big to be threatened by PPAs and criticism by the anti-PPAs. I mean, if anything has tarnished our reputation, it was Essjay. Anyways, it's been 2 years and I should think any moral panic has subsided, why not try to work with these editors to be better contributors? If we can work with other, more egregious vandals, abusers, and SPA accounts, why not them? It seems rather unfair and a double standard at best. What's worse, the anti-PPAs have been engaging in what seems like making Wikipedia their own personal battleground to conduct McCarthyite investigations to out suspected PPAs. I thought the referencing of external attack sites to do so was extremely tack, as well as a general lack of good faith. At this point, why can't we freely discuss reforming policy? Why do we have to put up with ridiculous ArbCom gag rules? I've seen others try to address this, but they refuse. Forgive me for breaking the rules here, but I'd rather not get targeted by the same fanatics. Not that I sympathize with the PPAs or condone their lifestyle, I just think policy should be applied evenly to sinners and saints. Is that a bad attitude to take? BTW, I'm sorry I complained about your bot in the past, I think the amount of crap you get for doing something that has to be done is also unfair. My complaint is with the policy, not you, so if I was heated and said uncivil things in the past, I am sorry and I regret it. --Dragon695 (talk) 00:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

removal of regex

Hiya there. Please explain [17]. Cheers =). --slakr^\ talk / 06:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If the talkpage comment and the edit summaries aren't enough, then what is? --Carnildo (talk) 06:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Eep, sorry. I didn't see the edit, plus I should have included \p{Z} anyway. My bad. Humblest apologies. :( *gives you roses* @)---`---,-- :P --slakr^\ talk / 06:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

OrphanBot is removing valid images

Yes. It is removing images and removing them from pages: it is particularly being done for images photographed by Wiki Editors, who chose to share it. There is nothing great about a bot removing such images. Not only that, but this handiwork will also alienate Wiki Editors from contributing any further in Wikipaedia. Hope you understand the issue. I came across this issue as one such valid image was removed from Kolkata page today. GDibyendu (talk) 07:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If you're referring to Image:Kolkataslum.jpg, it was removed because the image has no information on where it came from, just an assertion that it's licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike license. Without source information, it's impossible to verify the license, and without stating who the photographer is, Wikipedia's use of the image is a copyright violation. --Carnildo (talk) 07:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Richard Webster, 1st Viscount Alverstone

OrphanBot has knocked out the image of Richard Webster, 1st Viscount Alverstone. He died in 1915, and the photo can't be younger than about 1900, both before any copyright cut-off dates. I'm an editor, not WP copyright lawyer or an image manipulator, and am not responsible for the image in question. I note that you have posted this warning on the User talk page of User:Fys - however his home page says that "This account is no longer in use". However, the rationale for the release of the image Image:Alverstone.jpg is explained alongside it, as "copyright has expired", although I also see that "This tag is deprecated" is written on the image. Is that what is causing your Bot to reject the image? If so, rather than destroying the image will you please select a suitable alternative tag, as I suspect you know more about this than I? Thanks, Ephebi (talk) 14:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the tag to {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}, which is likely to be correct. If you've got any questions, you'll want to take it up with User:Kelly, who was the one to mark the image as unsourced. --Carnildo (talk) 18:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks Ephebi (talk) 08:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:TOV 'edit warring'

There is no edit waring. We came to a middleground a few hours ago. Bstone (talk) 05:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

There was an issue regarding the custom intro box or to use the regular essay template. We all agreed upon the custom one. Then there was a question regarding capitalizing something. It's all been worked out and no one I am aware of asked for protection. We worked it out among ourselves. Page protection is utterly not needed and way, way over the top in light of no issue actually existing. Bstone (talk) 06:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pedophile topic mentorship

Carnildo, you've been specifically asked to email the arbitration committee about these blocks if you have a concern. I understand that you might be upset that your unblock was overturned, but please respect the committee's wishes and don't restore the discussion again. Ryan Postlethwaite 08:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not too terribly upset about the block being overturned. What annoys the hell out of me is that, should I wish to discuss this with anybody but the ArbCom, I need to do so in secret, or to have the conversation fast, before the ArbCom notices. --Carnildo (talk) 08:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

and you know what, I actually feel the same as well - I think there's certainly room to discuss these blocks without bringing the project into disrepute. Maybe start a general discussion somewhere about how we could discuss these blocks and bring a little more accountability to them. If I made a block and said I would only discuss it by email, for whatever reason, it would be overturned within minutes. Ryan Postlethwaite 08:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

ImageRemovalBot: slightly broken edit

Just a heads up: on 17 April 2008, ImageRemovalBot's edit to an Infobox Musical artist template in the Drew Lachey article left behind a visible wikicode fragment ("[[Image:‎|220px|]]"). Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 23:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

That's odd, because the template looks like it should handle an empty "Img" parameter properly. You might try asking at WP:VP/T to see if someone with a better understanding of template code can figure it out. --Carnildo (talk) 00:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Apparently it is a left-to-right mark causing the issue (see Template talk:Infobox Musical artist#ImageRemovalBot breaking this template). Can you set the bot to delete these when it finds them? mattbr 19:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Figures. I've been fighting those things ever since I wrote ImageRemovalBot. --Carnildo (talk) 19:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Question

How did you become the person who maintains the bot "Orphanbot"? Did you make it or did you just get put in charge of it? I'm confused as to why some people get to operate bots. (Sorry...I'm new!) --Cher <3 (talk) 00:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I made it. --Carnildo (talk) 00:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Respond to Arab Gulf, above

--208.102.210.163 (talk) 00:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

FairuseBot - The following images also have this problem:

Hi Carnildo

Thanks for your bot's message. I tend to get a few messages about images I uploaded in my first year at Wiki, and I welcome them because it means I can address the problem. I got a bot message about Image:Aasslogo.gif. and dealt with it, and archived the message. After archiving I noticed that your bot has a "The following images also have this problem:" added to the end which I had missed when first getting the message. The reason I had missed this is because the majority of bot messages give the reader the important information in the first sentence then give standadised advise on how to deal with the situation. After reading the standardised information once or twice, people no longer read on past the essential information. As such when you have a "The following images also have this problem:" section tagged on to the end of your bot's message it may not get read by a number of users. You could resolve this problem by putting the additional images in the lead section - "Thanks for uploading XX and XXX and XXXX" and rewording the message to allow for this. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 12:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that would be a good idea. The bot might take two or three weeks to encounter every problematic image a user has uploaded, and a growing list at the end of the message is more visible than one in the middle. --Carnildo (talk) 19:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Argov.jpg

Your bot has identified this image as noncompliant with Wikipedia nonfree use criteria. This is the second time this has happened. It is no doubt the impression of the bot that Argov is a living artist, and that, under the circumstances, I could go and take a photo of him which would be in the public domain. This is not the case. Argov is dead. He died in 1987. Therefore, it is impossible to create a free image of him.

The image is used twice in the Wikipedia, once in Music of Israel and once in the article on Zohar Argov. The use in both cases is justified under fair use criteria, and is, in fact, essential to the material discussed in those articles.

Thank you, --Ravpapa (talk) 15:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the image only has a fair-use rationale for its use in Zohar Argov. You also need to add one for its use in Music of Israel, or better, remove it from that article, since it doesn't seem to meet the fair-use requirements: it could be replaced by a free-licensed photo of another artist, and the use is mostly decorative rather than informative. --Carnildo (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that the use is mostly decorative. Zohar Argov was by far the most important artist in developing the Muziqa Mizrahit genre. What's more, his personal appearance was an important part of his performance personna. He is, both in appearance, in character, and in personal style, the archetypical Middle Eastern Jew. No other performer of this genre more perfectly epitomizes its character.

I will add a fair-use rationale for use in the article. --Ravpapa (talk) 19:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Later - I added the fair-use rationale for Music of Israel and also deleted the NFCC tag. I hope this was the right thing to do. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Image: AmerSwee.jpg

I can't tell what's wrong with this image. It meets the rationale/guidelines as far as I can tell, and I've used this rationale many times without any problem. rjstern

The rationale is for the article America's Sweetheart, but the article the image is used in is America's Sweetheart (musical). --Carnildo (talk) 22:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Rainforest

Sorry to bother you. I was amazed by the high number you quoted on the ref desk. If you could spare the time and point me toward some sources. I knew it worked, I just didn't know it worked quite that well. Wow! --Lisa4edit (talk) 00:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I wish I could remember, but it's one of those things I found out a long time ago. --Carnildo (talk) 00:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

America's Sweetheart

Thanks - I fixed it!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjstern (talk • contribs) 21:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Image removal from infoboxes

Hi! I had an image deleted by an administrator (correctly, I must add, but now I'm less newbie about these things), and afterwards your bot also correctly removed the link from the infobox in the page by replacing |image_name=imagename.jpg with |image_name=. However, I think the bot should be improved so as tho also replace the other two standard image-related parameters, |image_size=xxx and |image_caption=blahbla, otherwise infoboxes might behave strangely, as in this case. Automatically replacing them with empty ones would automagically solve these cases.

By the way: I think people guess it's your bot that deletes images because of its name, ImageRemovalBot. I'd suggest you rename it to something more verbose, such as DeadImageLinkRemovalBot, or even LinkToMissingImageRemovalBot. Yes, both are ugly, but one of these would save you from a lot of wrongly-targeted complaints, the LinkToMissing... even more so than the DeadImageLink... one. :-) -- alexgieg (talk) 13:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I tried having the bot remove other parameters, but it's too much work: the "standard" names aren't standard -- in addition to "image_size", I've also seen it called "resolution", "size", "image-size", "scale", and other things. "image_caption" has even more variation. After two months, I had over 300 rules for image removal, and was still finding new infoboxes as fast as ever. A better solution would be to have the infobox hide the caption if there's no image. You can ask how to do this on the Village Pump or on the template's talk page. --Carnildo (talk) 18:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Ouch, I see how painful that is. Thanks for the reply, I'll see to it that the infobox gets updated. -- alexgieg (talk) 18:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Belgium euro coins (second series) tagged as not fair use compliant

Your bot tagged Belgium euro coins (second series) tagged as not fair use compliant. I have reverted the tagging. Can you explain why the bot tagged these images as they (and the rest of the euro coins) are fair use compliant? Snappy56 (talk) 11:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Because the images are not compliant for all the pages they're used in. For example, Image:Belgium euro s02 005.jpg only has a fair-use rationale for its use in Belgian euro coins. The bot marked it as not having an adequate rationale for 5 cent euro coins, and if someone doesn't add a rationale, the bot will remove the image from that page in five days. --Carnildo (talk) 21:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Emily Helen Butterfield

Hi, your bot removed this image "Image:Armorial.gif" from the Emily Helen Butterfield article, I have now explained the fair use rationale on the image page and restored the image to the article. Hope it is now OK. Thanks for all your hard work - Epousesquecido (talk) 16:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. --Carnildo (talk) 21:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:BlackGateMagazineCover Issue1 2.jpg

You bot tagged the image and I have now added fair use rationale and reverted the tagging. If there's a problem, please let me know. --KNHaw ^(talk) 17:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

FairuseBot made bad calls on three occasions

Just thought I'd let you know that FairuseBot made bad calls on three occasions - related to Image:Carla C.jpg, Image:Cesar E. Chavez.jpg, and Image:Cfa.gif. All of these met the fair use criteria prior to the bot's arrival, and required no edits to accomplish that end, and were tagged by the bot. On those, I rolled back the tagging, but considering it did so on multiple occasions, I thought it was worth a mention so you could look at it. I stopped the bot by messaging it, but since it made a lot of good calls as well, I'm not going to block it, but it may be in need of a little refinement. Keep up the good work. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The bot made the right decision in all three cases.

• In the case of Image:Cfa.gif, it had a fair-use rationale for Cypriot First Division 2006-07, but no rationale for any of the thirteen other places it's used -- and in my evaluation, it doesn't meet the "minimial use" or "significance" criteria for any of the articles it's used in except Cypriot Second Division.
• For Image:Cesar E. Chavez.jpg, the image has fair-use rationales for César Chávez (where it's used) and United States presidential election, 1976 (where it isn't used), but it's missing a fair-use rationale for Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 1976.
• For Image:Carla C.jpg, there's a fair-use rationale for Flandre, but that's not the article the image is used in.

I've reverted the edits to all three pages. --Carnildo (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Carnildo is correct in all of the above. Kelly ^hi! 20:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Homeschooling May 2008 Newsletter

	The Homeschooling WikiProject News
Issue Four • May 2008 • About the Newsletter
News Recent Project News Collaboration of the Month nominations are currently open for WikiProject Homeschooling's Collaboration of the month. So far there have been two nominations. You can nominate and vote at May's Collaboration page (link). Project member count reaches 37 members! Invite others using our invitation templates. A new article, List of homeschooled individuals has been created. You can help the project by tagging the talk pages of articles with {{WikiProject Homeschooling}} We are working on getting the homeschooling article to GA status.
Archives • Newsroom
Newsletter written by DiligentTerrier (and friends). Newsletter delivered by Diligent Terrier Bot

The message above has been delivered by Diligent Terrier Bot, a bot operated by Diligent Terrier.

FairuseBot and sections

See User talk:SatyrTN where over the last couple of weeks the bot, instead of making new sections, only appends to the original first section it created. Unless you are actually watching and paying attention, and providing no one else comes along and leaves a comment after the bot, you'll miss the notices. The bot should make a new section for each image. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 22:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been trying to come up with a balance between making sure that users see the notices, and keeping the bot from producing floods of notices. --Carnildo (talk) 22:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested modification to OrphanBot and ImageTaggingBot

Many infobox templates contain an entry for an image, and frequently when a legal image isn't available, a placeholder image is used. I have noticed that when that placeholder image has been replaced by a violating image, that the violating image is just deleted from the infobox by the bot, rather than the placeholder being restored. This is a bad practice and the bots should be modified to prevent it. In my opinion they should do the following:

1. The templates used by these bots should be modified to contain a field for specifying a placholder image.
2. In the even that a violating image found, the ImageTaggingBot should put the name of a default placeholder image in the tag ( which could be manually changed t a more appropriate placeholder from Category:Wikipedia_image_placeholders)
3. In the even that OrphanBot encounters a tagged image, it should replace it with the placeholder image specified in the tag. If there is no placeholder specified, it should replace the violating image with a default placholder image.

-64.32.189.89 (talk) 01:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

There are cases where putting a placeholder in an infobox is the wrong thing to do. Since this is something that takes human judgement, it's not something that the bots are going to do. --Carnildo (talk) 04:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't think of a single instance where deleting an image is preferable to replacing it with a generic placeholder image that requests that a compliant image be placed in its stead. Can you give an example of when it's the wrong thing to do? -Misty Willows (talk) 08:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

{{multi-listen item}} would be one example -- it's not an infobox, but to the bot, it looks like one. Putting a placeholder in an infobox that dynamically positions a dot on a map is also wrong: the infobox would place the dot on the placeholder. There are also cases where an infobox has an image parameter, but it's not possible for an image to meet the fair-use criteria. --Carnildo (talk) 18:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion (NFCC 10c deletions)

For WP:NFCC 10c deletions, can I suggest adding explicit text to the edit summary, after the bit that says the image apprears to be being used outwith policy? Something like:

To correct this, it is possible that all that is needed is the addition of an appropriate fair use rationale to the image's description page

Otherwise I fear WP may lose more content that is necessary, that is legitimate fair use, but for which the paperwork requirements haven't quite been completed correctly (or perhaps weren't in force at the time).

Secondly, could I also suggest the bot add a template to the image description page, something like:

• Image removed from article page. Reason: NFCC 10c (no corresponding fair use rationale identified). Timestamp.

To see where an image was previously used would be very helpful to anyone coming along later to decide whether an apparently orphaned image really ought to be deleted; or whether it merely needs a rationale written.

Achieving NFC compliance is important; but as far as possible IMO we need to minimise the collateral damage in getting there. Jheald (talk) 11:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

When you mention "10c deletions", what are you talking about? The bot doesn't delete images, and I almost never do. If you want people to change their deletion summaries, you'll have to talk to them.

When the bot marks an image as being out of compliance for some of the pages it's used on, it includes a list of pages that the image is out of compliance for. I'll modify the bot to include the list for cases where the image is out of compliance for all pages. --Carnildo (talk) 18:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. To be clear, I meant the automated removal of an image from an article; not the outright deletion of the image from Wikipedia completely. IMO, when images are removed, it would be useful to identify the exact NFCC infringement in the article summary, and to be encouraging to editors of the article that it is possible the objection might be easily resolved.

I know the bot sends messages to the image uploader. But they may be long gone. That's why I'm suggesting it may also be helpful to leave a note in the edit summary of the article, and on the image description page, as to what's been done and why.

It may be that an interested user only has the article itself on their watch list. At the moment the first thing they will know about there being a problem is that the image has suddenly been removed -- with a message that can be misinterpreted as suggesting that the bot has identified a substantive compliance problem, rather than just a NFCC 10c paperwork issue. Adjusting the messages could alleviate this. Jheald (talk) 10:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem with that is that if the bot asks for links, then links are what we'll get. Over 80% of the images the bot marks have no fair-use rationale; for images used in multiple articles with links for only some of them, the remaining articles almost never have rationales. As things stand right now, if the bot tags an image, the image either gets a fair-use rationale or it gets removed/deleted. I've seen very few cases of people gaming the bot.

The bot attempts to decide on the best place to leave a notice. If an image doesn't have links for any of the articles it's used in, the bot will leave a notice on the uploader's talkpage. If it has links for some but not all of the articles, it'll leave notices on the articles without links. --Carnildo (talk) 19:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggested change in message

Maybe there could be a slight rewording for the case when there is a proper rationale for some of the articles an image is used in but missing rationales for other articles? Possibly instead of

This image does not meet Wikipedia's non-free content policy. The image needs a fair-use rationale that links to the article or articles it is for. If this is not fixed within a week, the image will be removed from any articles without a proper rationale, and may be deleted.

it could say (in that case)

This image does not meet Wikipedia's non-free content policy. The image needs a fair-use rationale that links to each and every article it is used for. If this is not fixed within a week, the image will be removed from any articles without a proper rationale, and may be deleted if the image is no longer used in any article as a result of such removals.

Okay, a bit wordy, and could use a bit of tightening, but I think the general thrust is more accurate and clearer. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 22:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It also doesn't match what the bot does. If the image doesn't have links or names for any of the articles, it simply gets deleted and afterwards ImageRemovalBot takes care of removing it from any articles. --Carnildo (talk) 23:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I didn't know that (although I thought that bots weren't supposed to perform admin actions such as deletion directly, but since I don't have a objection to that...I won't object). However, the current message is, at best, incomplete. Take an example of an image used in three places, but only having a rationale for one of the uses. If the missing two rationales are not eventually provided, it's understandable and expected that it would be removed from those two articles, but since it has a proper rationale for one article, it wouldn't be deleted (or tagged to be deleted), would it? The message is unclear, especially for a newish editor.

(There's also the wording issue that it really isn't the image not meeting the fair-use policy so much as a particular use of the image not meeting the policy, but since that appears to be the common shortcut used everywhere for that...well, that ship's sailed.)

Anyway, please consider clearing up the message the bot leaves in that case. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 04:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. Currently, there's only one template the bot uses when tagging images, but I should probably replace it with two: one for no links, and one for not enough links. It might take a while: User:ST47 announced he was leaving, and I'm busy re-writing one of my bots so it can take over for one of his. --Carnildo (talk) 04:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

(reading up on ST47). Oh, wow, that's not good. First things first -- my request is fairly low prio compared to that anyway. Good luck with the reprogramming. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Adding more images to the message

I'm not happy about it. It's not clear what is happening. I appreciate being alerted to the fact that an image needs attention, but I am concerned that the way your bot operates I could be missing out on some alerts that are simply being tagged on the end of an existing message higher up on my talkpage where I may not see it. No other image messaging bot has behaved this way. While it may be simpler for you, it is not helpful to the receiver. Would you please reconsider? Regards SilkTork *^YES! 00:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's more complex for me. I'm trying to come up with a way of notifying users without leaving their pages flooded with dozens or hundreds of templated messages. I could have the bot move the entire notification section to the end of the page, would that be better? --Carnildo (talk) 01:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I see your intention. And the proposed solution sounds better. Though I see no harm in getting a new message for a new image notification. I regard these notifications as important and helpful, and I don't mind the new message taking up 7cm rather than 1cm - the important thing is that the message is seen. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 09:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

STBotl

Carnildo, I left some questions for you in particular at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Blocked_yet_again which I hope you'll reply to. thanks. --Duk 14:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I see you're back, but instead of replying to the questions asked you've chosen to go run and hide. These questions are clear, fair, honest and get to the heart of the matter. Since you've refused to answer them, I can only conclude that your reason for participating in the first place was to stick up for your little buddy - regardless of his behavior. You clearly aren't interested in answering hard questions or resolving this problem. Whatever words you spend on this topic, in the past and in the future, no longer carry any weight. --Duk 13:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

AN

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Community_ban_discussion_-_Jovin_Lambton

If you have an opinion on the issue, I will be happy to see you share it. J-Lambton ^T/_C 02:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Help

Hy my question is,isn't this vandalism here?--Makedonij (talk) 17:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a content dispute to me. --Carnildo (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Reezy

I ran across an image that this user had put up as fair use, and for source it reads: self made. When I tagged it, not only did he remove the tag, (I put it back), but he removed the warning from his talk page. I was looking at the history of his talk page, and this is not the first time this has happened. Is there anything that can be done about a user who is blatantly copyright infringing? Thanks! ≈Alessandro ♫ ^{T • C} 22:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Report it on the administrators' noticeboard. --Carnildo (talk) 23:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Will do! Thanks! ≈Alessandro ♫ ^{T • C} 00:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Link Removed - Public Domain Image Resources

Page states images are in public domain. What's wrong with the link? Thanks.--Timjamz (talk) 22:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The owner of that website appears to be confused over what public domain means. They say "Finally Creative LLC ... retains all legal copyright", which means the images are not public domain, and they do not permit the images to be put in galleries of public domain images, a restriction they couldn't impose if the images really were public domain. They also don't permit the creation of derivative works, which means the images don't meet Wikipedia's definition of free content. --Carnildo (talk) 23:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I brought it to their attention, and it looks like they have updated the release statement. --Timjamz (talk) 01:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

That's good to hear. --Carnildo (talk) 01:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

So, can I put my link back now? :-) --Timjamz (talk) 01:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Since the images are public domain, yes. --Carnildo (talk) 02:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Cold War Montage

I got the component images from Wikipedia articles, because I saw the World War I and World War II articles had component images for the montage from Wikipedia as well. Chris Iz Cali (talk) 02:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You need to add links to the individual images, then. Simply saying "the images are on Wikipedia" isn't good enough -- Wikipedia has about 700,000 images that someone would have to search through to find the originals. --Carnildo (talk) 03:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'm done, I put the links. -- Chris Iz Cali (talk) 00:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Hawthorn v West ... etc

Oops.. I made a big mistake. Both Image:Hawthorn v West Coast Eagles 26 05 07 074.jpg and Image:Hawthorn_v_Western_Bulldogs_-_31st_May_2008_181.jpg were listed on a page, I noticed your bot tagged one of them, but I looked at the Image information page on the other one. Sorry!! -- Chuq (talk) 07:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

IMAGES

Carnildo you deleted two images from the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Joseph_Cormier that were posted by another WikipediA Administrator http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Earl_Andrew. Is there a hierarchal structure system among Administrators so one can overrule another without discussion?

One image showed the subject of the article wearing the gag "Fear of the Truth" over his mouth as he was beat up and removed from the Visitors Gallery of the Canadian House of Commons on the first day of televised debate in history. That would make it an image associated with history, in Canada at least.

Understanding WikipediA respects copyrite restrictions, the tag applied to the deleted images reads as follows:

Because the image is historically significant, the entire image is needed to identify the subject, properly convey the meaning and branding intended, and avoid tarnishing or misrepresenting the image. Low resolution?

The copy is of sufficient resolution for commentary and identification but lower resolution than the original. Copies made from it will be of inferior quality, unsuitable for uses that would compete with any commercial purpose of the photograph. Purpose of use

Identification and critical commentary in the article, a subject of public interest. It makes a significant contribution to the user's understanding of the article, which could not practically be conveyed by words alone. The image is placed next to the associated material discussing the work, to show the primary visual image associated with the work, and to help the user quickly identify the work and know they have found what they are looking for. Replaceable?

Because the image depicts a non-reproducible historic event, there is almost certainly no free equivalent. Any substitute that is not a derivative work would fail to convey the meaning intended, would tarnish or misrepresent its image, or would fail its purpose of identification or commentary. Other information Use of the historic image in the article complies with Wikipedia non-free content policy and fair use under United States copyright law as described above. The image meets general Wikipedia content requirements and is encyclopaedic.

It will take some time before the Article is so widely known by the public, there is a 0% probability any newspaper will want to claim copyvio considering the subject.

Will you please undo what you did until there is a free and fair discussion by users? If there is any tag that could be associated to the disputed images to stimulate discussion, do that. The Editors of the Ottawa Citizen have been aware of its images on the Article since they were posted by Administrator Earl Andrew.

DoDaCanaDa (talk) 14:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You should probably address this to User:East718, as he's the one who deleted the images. My bot merely removed them from the article. --Carnildo (talk) 22:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• I don't understand the difference. His name is nowhere to be seen in the History. Would you clarify, Please?

DoDaCanaDa (talk) 23:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Look at the deletion log for the two images: [18] [19]. --Carnildo (talk) 00:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Please explain the differing procedures of the deleter and your bot so I may understand. This message was posted to User:East718 talk with no response or corrective action by either you or he.

DoDaCanaDa (talk) 13:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

People delete images for many different reasons. My bot removes the leftovers from articles to keep things looking reasonably clean. --Carnildo (talk) 01:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Is it customary for one Administrator to delete images another Administrator posted to an article without discussion? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:East718 has not replied to this message.

DoDaCanaDa (talk) 09:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Why wouldn't they? If an image isn't suitable for Wikipedia, why does it matter who posted it? --Carnildo (talk) 19:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Image:Electric Blue Ski Jacket Snow Queen With Her Head Back E .jpg

Go ahead and delete the image... It has served its purpose... Michael (talk) 01:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)