User talk:Carnildo

The SecondLife client was just open-sourced. I'm going to be quite busy for the forseeable future.

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

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

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.

WWII Images

What images are you looking for? I have pretty much everything on the allied side, and danmed near that for Axis troops. The problem is that I may have to remove them from the site at a later date (it would be unlikely, maybe a one in fifty probability against it, but possible) and am wondering how long such a thing would take in case. TaylorSAllen 20:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Bug in OrphanBot

Hi, your bot left a message on my talk page about Image:Ac.davidkemp.jpg and claimed that I uploaded it, which I didn't. I think you should fix this, seeing as there is next to zero chance that I could dig up the source for the image. — Timwi 20:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You're the most recent uploader on record for that image, so OrphanBot notified you. --Carnildo 00:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Surely the least recent uploader is the one that is most likely to be able to provide the copyright information? — Timwi 00:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Not really. Except in the case of reverts (and OrphanBot handles those just fine), the most recent uploader is certain to have had some contribution to the currently-displayed image. The first uploader, on the other hand, may have nothing to do with the currently-displayed image: see Image:Map 1914 WWI Alliances.jpg for an example of this. --Carnildo 00:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The fair use rationale template

You need to configure OrphanBot so it picks up the new {{fair use rationale}} template. Image:Action Park looping water slide.jpg has it, and I got a message all the same. Daniel Case 23:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Only if the template is modified so that leaving all the fields blank automatically tags the image for deletion. One of the two most common responses I see to OrphanBot tagging an image with {{no rationale}} is for the tag to be replaced with {{fair use rationale}}, the other being replacing the tag with {{rationale}}. --Carnildo 00:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Somewebsite

It was brought up on Template talk:Somewebsite#This tag that a lot of the images tagged with this have had just the no source tagged removed. From the ones I looked at it seemed like they were either autotagged at upload, or by orphanbot, then someone removed the deletion tag without actually updating the info.

Anyway, would it be possible to run through that category with orphanbot (Category:Uploader unsure of copyright status) and retag anything with only the {{somewebsite}} or {{Don't know}} tags with a no license or something? I did a random check and it seems like a pretty high amount actually. (<50% but still)  :) - cohesion 19:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Image copyright problem with Image:Wmsburg_seal.gif

Please discontinue use of your stupid OrphanBot program. It is not working properly. It tagged an image on a city article as not being tagged properly with copyright information, when the image in question is the official city seal of the city of Williamsburg, Virginia. This image is in use by the CITY GOVERNMENT and is in the public domain. Your mal-programmed bot does not understand this. This is not the first time this happened. Furthermore, I was not given adequate time to address the issue before the file was deleted. The file itself was also deleted without taking the links to the image off of the page, which left dead links!!!! This is a serious quality issue for Wikipedia. Please address this. Dr. Cash 02:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

In recognition

		The Purple Star
		Given in recognition for having one of the most vandalised user pages. Timrollpickering 03:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Re-ignition

I have given source, author and explanation for fair use, why is it still persisting in telling me I haven't added those things? I figured it may be a bug, so I bought it to your attention. Thanks, Hole in the wall 12:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

OrphanBot is labling images properly tagged

OrphanBot tagged and image tagged as PD-USGov-Military-Navy-NHC as unsourced, please fix. --71Demon 15:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Same error with Image:Brickwork.JPG, which is properly sourced and licensed.Fishdecoy 13:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Image:Brickwork.JPG was tagged due to a bug. I've turned off OrphanBot's tagging until I can figure out what happened.

Image:USS Barbour County.jpg, on the other hand, was tagged correctly. The {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy-NHC}} tag by itself is not an adequate source because there is no way to verify that the tag is correct. --Carnildo 20:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Carnildo, what is the point in having tags then? We tag them, so this doesn't happend, then your Bot marks them anyway. I get photos taken by the US Navy from the National Archives in DC for some of my projects. I mark them with {PD-USGov-Military-Navy-NHC} which is correct, beyond that not much I can do. Your bot should not be ignoring that lable, otherwise what is the point of the lable? --71Demon 14:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The point of having tags is to make it clear what the copyright status is. Before the standardized tagging system was developed, every uploader had their own way of indicating the copyright status, and it often wasn't clear what the license on a particular image was.

Adding the tag is equivalent to adding the phrase "this image is in the public domain as a work of the Navy Historical Center". Neither provides any evidence of where the image came from. --Carnildo 19:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

So when I goto the Mariners Musuem outside Norfolk and get the photos, and I put I got these from teh Mariners Musuem, are you going to call them up and ask them to check their guest registry everytime a post them? What about the ones I got from the National Archives. Should I post a picture of me walking out of the National Archives, of course how do I verify, that the picture I posted of me walking out of the national archives carrying the photos is released into the public domain? How do you know it is even me? I think therefore I am? Is that good enough? Just fix your bot, so people can get on editing with the non-sense. Thanks--71Demon 00:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Signature_Shops

I deleted your image block, with flashing text and porn links yet. I won't revert war over it, but I do believe it may be a canonical example of disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Come on, now. Please. Be good. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

OrphanBot question

Hey, Carnildo. OrphanBot apparently made this edit to a user notifying him of an orphaned image, but apparently never tagged the image, as it's still sitting out there as an orphan since October. Did something go wrong? User:Zoe|(talk) 21:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong there. Are you sure you've got the right link? OrphanBot tagged Image:K12r logo fixed.gif on October 11, and notified the user less than ten seconds later. The image was deleted on October 20. --Carnildo 23:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry, I was looking at the wrong image. The same User uploaded Image:Logo new.gif, which never got tagged. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The history of Image:Logo new.gif is a right royal mess. It looks like it was uploaded sometime before the existance of upload logs, tagged as a logo on April 7, manually tagged as orphaned fairuse on May 20, deleted on May 29, uploaded on July 8 by User:Halenaz, tagged as unsourced by OrphanBot twenty minutes later (the uploader was not notified because OrphanBot had already notified him about Image:Frontpage image.jpg two minutes earlier), removed from articles by OrphanBot on July 12, deleted on July 16, uploaded on September 13 by User:Freightdog, tagged by OrphanBot half an hour later (the uploader was not notified because OrphanBot had notified him about Image:Amererair.gif three minutes earlier), deleted on September 26, uploaded on October 11 with what looks like a perfectly good tag of {{logo}}. OrphanBot doesn't tag new uploads as orphaned fairuse because CSD I3 gives users seven days to get the image into articles, and OrphanBot looks at images within an hour of their being uploaded. --Carnildo 03:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Couple of AfDs that might interest you

Hi Carnildo. A persistent vandal who often uses IPs as sockpuppets decided on a new strategy and set up a couple of articles that really need to go. If you have a moment, I was wondering if you could look at Aga Khani and Islamic Cults and comment on their AfD pages. Much appreciated -- Aylahs ^(talk) 04:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Appologies - I just saw your note at the top. Please consider my request withdrawn. Regards -- Aylahs ^(talk) 05:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Protection of featured article

Wikipedia policies prevent the protection of the featured article. Just be patient, and after it comes of featured article, revert all changes. Then re-add worthwhile changes. Atom 20:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Reverting in List of unusual personal names

Please see my comments at Talk:List_of_unusual_personal_names#Removing_.22unsourced.22_additions —Dgies^t c 20:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You have now reverted this three times in under 24 hours. Please respect WP:3RR and get consensus on the talk page before reverting again. —Dgies^t c 04:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Bot damage

Please fix File:GanderInternationalAirport911.jpg. Several pages depend on it, and your bot deleted it indiscriminately. Thank you. 4.242.147.17 02:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Disney attraction posters

If you look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Disney, and more specifically Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disney#Disney poster fair use, you will see that one of the open tasks being worked on is to tag all the Disney attraction posters with a fair use rationale. Meanwhile, at least one of them (there could be lots, but not on my watchlist) has been deleted by OrphanBot, leaving Carousel of Progress with no images at all. It seems a shame to delete something so badly needed at a time when volunteers are working to correct the problem. Karen | Talk | contribs 13:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Update: upon further research, I see that the Image:Carousel of Progress Poster.jpg has not been deleted, except from the article. This was done on the basis on a template, dated Januray 8, 2007, claiming that it has no source information. Yet it is properly identified as an official Disney attraction poster, and has the right source listed and a detailed fair use rationale. I don't see how it can possibly be made any plainer. The problem appears to be one person's opinion that all of the above is "not good enough", followed up on by your bot. Since the entire category of images has the same issues, clearly something needs to be resolved before OrphanBot takes further action on them. Meanwhile I am going to revert the article edit. Thanks. Karen | Talk | contribs 13:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Just for light reading

Having intervened in your defense the last few days, I trust you appreciate that I've had no axe to grind with you. You may be able to add something useful, say a tip, to this explaination, or at least make a gesture. He seems to be a bit young and feeling put upon, so to speak. Even mistook me for an admin. Ha! Happy New Year, btw. Best wishes // FrankB 19:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Photos

Carnildo, now you have actually been helpful instead of combative and advisarial, but I still think you are wrong. I probably should have used this tag {{Copyrighted free use}} because the intent of the state to release these photo is for free use. Wiki, is not different that a news paper printing a short story, saying these are our Representatives, here is a little bio about them. Wiki is mearly electronic instead of print, but the intent of the state for these photos to be used is the same. The other point being, when I asked for these photos it was specifically for use on wiki.

You're probably well versed in wiki, and I don't know all the correct terms for use on wiki. So we are getting some culture clash. I have been involved in the mass media for a long time. I have written for magazines for many years, and have been an on air personality and producer of a radio show. I'm extremely familiar with copywrite info, and what can and cannot be used. I just don't know the correct wiki terms to classify it. My advise is, if you going to mark something, then contact that editor on their talk page, and work with them. You will catch more flies with honey, than you will with vinager. Yes, I'm a writter, thank good for spell check, because I'm not a speller. --71Demon 21:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Your last

(Hope that means I got somewhere! <g> He's right, but Jimbo wouldn't back down in November, so what're you guys going to do?)

Thanks, but I was refering to 'here' in that phrase. As active as I am over there moving images and playing with categorys, I'm aware there are over a million on the commons. I didn't have a better estimate for here, so made a WAG as we call it in engineering--A wild assed guess. So I guess that was off 8:1 here, give or take a few ten thousands. Have a good night and better days. I wouldn't want the task. I'm much happier trying to settle overactive juvenile testosterone going at it hammer and tongs over nothing much at all. Cheers! // FrankB 05:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Your bot posting to deceased user

Here your bot is posting notices to the page of a deceased user. This is appalling, the kind of insensitivity that makes headlines. Can you not blacklist pages you shouldnt send to or do something to stop this. I have removed the notices as clearly the user cant read them. It is very clear on his user and talk pages that he died 18 months ago. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added him to the "do not notify" file. Since you feel OrphanBot should not be notifying deceased individuals, could you please provide me with a complete list of which of the 3,265,067 currently-registered accounts belong to the deceased? --Carnildo 19:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Oooh, saucy, Carnildo *snicker* Juppiter 19:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians, this is where I got the info and this should indeed cover all the users wikipedia knopws to be dead, SqueakBox 19:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Nataraja

• User:Xulin

• User:Rob Levin

• User:Caroline Thompson

• Pushsingh

These are 5 further deceased users and that is all right now, SqueakBox 19:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

"I'm going to be quite busy for the forseeable future."

But not so busy as to delete sourced picture files. The source is labeled, clearly, as being a work of the U.S. federal government, and coming from a government web site (U.S. Department of State). Kindly bring your robot under control. Thanks! Best, CApitol3 14:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

OrphanBot "no source" tagging

I was going through the "no source" image backlog and noticed a fair number of images OrphanBot had tagged as having no source that seem to have a clear source. How does OrphanBot determine if an image has no source? Specific errors I have seen include tags on tv screenshots (the source, obviously, is the TV show), similarly for movie posters and so on. Other images have had the source explicitly given, but as a link to a Wikipedia article on the source rather than a web page or plain text. Mangojuice^talk 16:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

OrphanBot considers an image to be unsourced if the image description page contains only section headers and license tags, and none of the license tags is of the sort that specifies the source. {{tv-screenshot}} is not considered to specify the source: yes, the source of the screenshot is the TV show, but which part of which episode of which show?

OrphanBot shouldn't be tagging movie posters. Those are considered to have a self-evident source, just like album covers and corporate logos. Can you provide some examples of where OrphanBot has incorrectly tagged an image as unsourced? --Carnildo 22:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

In retrospect, the movie posters were obviously movie posters but weren't correctly tagged until after OrphanBot got to them, so forget that. Two points, though: (1) I think tv-screenshot images shouldn't be tagged. First of all, in many cases, the image's context in use will give the source information, and in some cases, the image filename would be sufficient. Second, even if only the TV series is clear from context, is that really a case where we should be speedy deleting images that lack the information? (2) What about upload edit summaries -- does OrphanBot consider those to specify the source if they're given? Because they do, at least sometimes. Mangojuice^talk 19:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Non-commercial use only images

Would it be posible to get a 1 off orphan bot run on this catigory?Geni 01:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphanbot

Thanks for your bot notifying me about the image. Uploading images here on wikipedia is so complicated and difficult, I'm beginning to think why even bother. Having to have every single detail about the image, I don't think I'll be uploading very many images here on Wikipedia (I'll just stick to text). Anyways, thanks for the notification via Orphanbot. 0-172 3:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

RFI

Check RFI report about you.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

{{allowedin}}

I spoke with the creator of this tag ed g2s (talk · contribs) about whether he was continuing development of both the tag and the bot, and he said that he is "still waiting for someone with bot-coding experience to have a go at it". With your experience with bots, would this be anything you would either have interest in assisting with, or perhaps know anybody who could help? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 05:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

This is probably best done using a Toolserver account. I recommend talking to User:Gmaxwell about this. --Carnildo 00:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

OrphanBot

Hey, Carnildo. I think your bot needs a bit of work. It's taging images that clearly say that the copyright had expired. --Arctic Gnome 16:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Such as? --Carnildo 19:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for possible addition to bot duties

I was wondering if it were possible if this bot could scan fair use images to determine if they are used outside of article namespace? All the bot would have to do is scan the fair use image categories and if the image is used outside of namespace, it could write the name of the image to a log for a human editor to review later. Would this be possible?--NMajdan•talk 20:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It's technically feasable, but not a suitable task for OrphanBot. OrphanBot's mode of operation is to get a list of all images in a given category, then download and inspect the image description page for each image. This works just fine for tasks where the majority of images need some action (unsourced images, for example), but is very inefficient when almost no images need action (less than 1% of fair-use images are used outside of articles). --Carnildo 00:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm.. ok. Thought I'd ask. Roomba and Fritzbot are inactive so I'll go back to WP:BOTREQ and see if we can get somebody else to take up the task. Thanks anyways.--NMajdan•talk 19:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

OrphanBot, image removal leads to blank lines

Thanks for OrphanBot, it's obviously a very good thing.

I was wondering if you could tweak the way that it comments out images from articles though. I've run across a fair number of articles that have an extra blank line rendered at the top, caused by orphanbot commenting out an image. (example) The issue is that "[[Image:]] <extra blank line> Start of text" doesn't render an extra blank line, but "<!-- comment --> <extra blank line> Start of text" does. I don't know the minutiae of wikitext that well, but might it be possible to check if the line after the image is a blank line, and if so, move the --> down to that line? (example) --Interiot 00:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Is it really that serious a problem? It's not as easy to fix as you make it sound: there are situations where moving the end of the comment down can merge paragraphs or otherwise mess up the formatting. --Carnildo 20:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It affects the rendering of articles, so yes. Does it only happen at the start of articles then? If so, could you just fix that case? --Interiot 20:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if it happens in the middle of articles. Wikipedia's wikitext parser has some quirks when it comes to the interaction of newlines and comments. --Carnildo 01:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:CalvinRuck.jpg

Scuse me, but why is your bot continuing to mark the image CalvinRuck.jpg [Image:CalvinRuck.jpg] as having no fair use rationale. One is there. Have I done something wrong in documenting it or has your bot made a mistake? Caper13 03:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Bot mistake. The bot has a list of keywords it uses to see if the uploader has attempted to write a fair-use rationale, and you managed to avoid using any of them. --Carnildo 20:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Energy: world resources and consumption

Could you please look at the brand new Energy: world resources and consumption and comment if it is ready to be a featured article? Thank you for your help.
Frank van Mierlo 13:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:St anthony falls Oct 2005.jpg

I don't understand why this is tagged as lacking information on copyright status. The information is there and it is conspicuous and would be seen by anyone looking at the page. Michael Hardy 19:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the history, you tagged it that way when you uploaded it. You need to provide a link to the original page and replace the current tags with the {{GFDL}} tag. --Carnildo 20:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

So is its present form satisfactory? Michael Hardy 00:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Reasonably so, although it appears that the French Wikipedia is actually using an image on Commons: commons:Image:St anthony falls Oct 2005.jpg. --Carnildo 01:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Psyrsky.jpg‎

If I name the picture I took of the sky and I name the picture sky when I upload it, it attaches me to some other user named sky, so I alter the name Psyrsky to prevent this from occurring and now the bot tells me there may be a copyright issue, what is the issue? Yes, I am allowing it to be online, I give my picture freely to the internet what is the issue? —The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|Psychologyofrecovery 02:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)]] comment was added by Psychologyofrecovery (talk • contribs) 02:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

FYI - ArbCom review of your status

I think you should be aware of the discussion underway at Wikipedia:Requests for_arbitration#Request for clarification on review of Carnildo's promotion. Regards, Newyorkbrad 17:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Nabonidus cylinder sippar bm1 s.JPG

Nabonidus cylinder sippar bm1 s.JPG can be removed, as it has been replaced by a better photo.Jona Lendering 12:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Juppiter formally denounces Carnildo

Reposted from Nader.jpg:

Seriously, it has gotten to the point where Wikipedia has no pictures left in its articles. If you're doing research you have to search for text on Wikipedia and then scour the internet for pictures elsewhere. Wikipedia's popularity may be on the upswing, but criticism of Wikipedia is also on the upswing and I'd like to take the chance to formally renounce all the editors who have taken part in this ridiculous, destructive war on images. Juppiter 01:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

That's "denounce". — coelacan talk — 02:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Why OrphanBot can't read?

Have a look at this.[1] Rationale is there, but wasn't noticed. Got me wondering, how exactly does this thing decide what a rationale looks like? Are there any special things I can do to make the bot's job easier? — coelacan talk — 02:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the rationale was placed inside the {{information}} tag. The bot doesn't look inside tag bodies for rationales, because otherwise it would be fooled by {{fair use in}} tags into thinking there was a rationale when there wasn't one. --Carnildo 07:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! I'll remember that. In the future, couldn't it specifically ignore "fair use in" and "fairusein" when directly preceded by two curly braces and an arbitrary amount of whitespace? Bots don't seem to normally have trouble recognizing templates. — coelacan talk — 15:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible malfunction?

The following was posted to WP:AIV:

• OrphanBot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) malfunctioning bot; is placing template:no copyright holder on GFDL licensed images clearly marked with template:GFDL-no-disclaimers; see [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. John254 00:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The bot appears to have stopped doing this, but I would be appreciative if you investigated this matter further. Cbrown1023 talk 00:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The bot was correct in tagging those images: {{GFDL-no-disclaimers}} does not indicate the copyright holder. --Carnildo 01:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Parentheses in Template:No source

Regarding this edit, wouldn't the surrounding <span id="delete-tag-date"></span> be sufficient for OrphanBot? Just wondering. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

At some point in the future, yes, but right now OrphanBot looks for the parentheses. If I hadn't reverted that change, it would have caused OrphanBot to re-tag every no-source image last night. --Carnildo 21:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Taj Mahal

I seemed to remember you are something of a whizz on copyright issues - would you mind taking a look at todays edits by this user there's a couple of images he's added to the Taj Mahal article which are a bit suss. I left a polite message on his talk page asking for some clarification but I'm no expert and might be talking through my arse on this one. Given that he only seems to log on once every quarter, I thought you'd know the right course of action. Cheers. --Mcginnly | Natter 15:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Give him a week or two to respond to the talkpage, then nominate the questionable images for deletion. Images can be undeleted, so we can restore them if, six months from now, he demonstrates that the images really are under a free license. --Carnildo 20:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

He's asserted in an email to me that he holds the copyright and owns the website from which they derive. He's posted that assertion on the image pages now - seems sufficient to me. --Mcginnly | Natter 13:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

FAC and FU

Hi, it's been a while since you patrolled FACs for their fair use; would you care to weigh in on the current noms for The Smashing Pumpkins and Wesley Clark. Thanks. --Peta 03:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

#%$&*

"Image has no copyright tag" WHAT IN THE HELL DOES THAT MEAN?! i FOUND THE IMAGE TO BE UNDER GOOGLES FREE USE CATAG! GODDAMN IT! THE DAMN COPYRIGHT EXPIRED LAST YEAR! THERE'S "2" REASONS TO KEEP "MY" IMAGE! PLEASE EXPLAIN WHAT THIS TECHNOLOGICAL DISASTERS IS TALKING ABOUT, I AM NOT TRYING TO BE BANNED FROM A NOTHER SITE, MAINLY THIS GREAT SITE WITH RULE FROM HELL!--saikano 18:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The date on the copyright notice is the date the copyright was granted. The copyright won't expire for another century or so. --Carnildo 20:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Images from city-data.com

Please see here. Every pages for cities have that notice. This tells pictures in city-data.com are usable in any form of media. Yassie 03:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

No. It says that city-data.com can use the pictures in any form of media. It does not say anything about what anyone else can do with those pictures. --Carnildo 03:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Mary Henry Both Sides Now.jpg

OrphanBot tagged this as having no rationale, even though it explicitly includes the {{Fair use rationale}} template. Can you possibly explain to me what is going on and what, if anything, further I need to do? (Please, if you answer here, at least ping my user talk page, because I have not been following my watchlist. Thanks.) - Jmabel | Talk 05:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, I raised this at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#What exactly did I fail to do? but didn't really get a useful answer, that is why I've come over here. - Jmabel | Talk 05:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Nobody told OrphanBot about the tag. OrphanBot only looks for rationales outside of templates, because otherwise it would be fooled by the names of some templates into thinking there was a rationale when there wasn't. --Carnildo 02:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Arcata Bike Library Image

My dear editor, please help me keep this image. I know the person who took the image with my camera. Please tell me exactly what to do to keep it. I really don't understand all the mumbo jumbo of the images. Please 'cause 'you're my only hope.'--al95521 07:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

plese help

carnildo,I'm a new wikipedian and i don know how to give a copy right tag to an image. i've uploaded an image carrots.it has no copy right owner and please give a copy right teg to it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaseemum (talk • contribs) 12:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

The first thing you'll need to do is say who created the image and why it's uncopyrighted when it looks new enough to be automatically covered under the current laws. That should allow someone who knows more about this than I do to tell you what tag you need to use. --Murgatroyd 22:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

RE:Uploads

Greetings,

I was wondering, why am I receiving so many reports from your bot about my previous uploads all of a sudded. At present, I am in a middle of a dispute between a couple other users. With all these reports coming in all at once, it made me to believe that the ones I am in dispute with could be behind this. I understand rules are rules, and I respect that. Perhaps, this could be just a coincidence. I will give this the benefit of the doubt and will be willing to take care of these uploading situations. Please let me know what to do so I do not get any more reports on these previous uploaded pictures? Should I delete them if I did not upload them correctly? If so, then how do I do that? Kind Regards.

Wiki Raja 07:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

If you simply do nothing, the images will be deleted in a week or so. I can have the bot stop notifying you about the images if that's what you want. --Carnildo 02:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

OrphanBot didn't notify uploader of missing rational - bug?

In the template which OrphanBot added it says:

Notify the uploader with
{{subst:Missing rationale|Image:Ff cgw.jpg}} ~~~~

This is clearly something OrphanBot should do since it added the "Missing rational" tag. I'm refering to this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Ff_cgw.jpg&diff=108407307&oldid=108396193 --Pizzahut2 19:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

OrphanBot already notified the uploader about problems with that image. To try to keep OrphanBot from spamming peoples' talk pages too badly, it will notify them no more than twice about problems with an image: once when the image is newly-uploaded, and once when it's about to be removed from a page. --Carnildo 02:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

OrphanBot task

Can you remove {{PhilippinesGov}} and replace them with a no license template? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

If you redirect the template to {{no license}}, the next time OrphanBot processes Category:Images with no copyright tag, it will add a dated {{no license}} tag to the image description pages. --Carnildo 02:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, redirect is made. Thanks. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Ban This Guy

Since you are the first administrator I could find can you ban User:Gay fuel mmm, he's do nothing but vandelise Wikipedia (including my user page). Thanks --Mr.crabby (Talk) 01:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, someone else took care of it --Mr.crabby (Talk) 01:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Ban the Guy

Hey fellow users, should we ban User:Batzarro, he has done nothing but vandal, and he has only been blocked over and over, why not come hard on him?71.96.196.108 06:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

Re: =

Thanks for the message about BarlowSchool.jpg...Do I have to upload it again to change the copyright status?...And if I do have to...then will I have to put it under a different name? Thank You 82.31.4.125 12:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to log in...the last message was by 12:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

--Brylcreem2 12:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Goldkey.jpg

I already put in a fair use tag and indicated the copyright holder and date, the copyright holder being my organization of which I am a life member and officer. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Profdrmendoza (talk • contribs) 16:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

Your bot tagging Chicago Spire.jpg

Your bot tagged an image I recently uploaded a new version of. It left a message on my talk page stating I provided no rational or explanation as to why it is fair use, however the page is tagged with {{Fair use in}} and {{withpermission}}. I also included source information. Am I missing something here or is this bot just malfunctioning? Chupper 21:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Absurd Image Wars

It really is getting to the point where it's impossible to upload images to Wikipedia, chiefly because of vandals (yes, that's right, I said vandals) like you (and your bots) using absurdly outrageously draconian justifications to delete images and image references. What annoys me more than anything else is that you can't even be bothered giving useful explanations why you're deleting something, let alone (god forbid) actually helping by correcting what problem you see with the resource (finding another image?).

People like you are ruining this site for others - contributors tend to just give up, because of the constant fights.Mikejstevenson 13:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

When you spend your time uploading the copyrighted works of others[13] in violation of our policies it is you who harming our mission. Please take a step back and realize that Carnildo is trying to help, that he does a lot of work, and that he has a lot of support. Perhaps you are confused about the purpose of Wikipedia? This isn't youtube. --Gmaxwell 17:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

Image:300px-Kaligoddess.jpeg needs to be speedily deleted because it is a scaled-down copy of Image:Kaligoddess.jpg. (Ghostexorcist 23:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC))

About bot

Hi. Maybe someone asked you this already but I wonder, if it is possible to use the OrphanBot to check the images that have been tagged for some days and remove the tag if someone used them in an article in the meanwhile. It would be useful. Today, I was cleaning the category and found many images that were actually used in articles. Removing the tag with bot's help would come handy. Regards. --Tone 19:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Matrix Scheme

We have tried to resolve things, but Arzel and myself seem unable to reach agreement. I am abiding by the Wikipedia policies by deleting the matrixwatch.org external link, due to it being a discussion forum which is not allowed. However, Arzel does not believe this should happen.

Can you please look into this? I am simply trying to abide by the rules, but this does not seem to be appreciated. The article has been protected by yourself, and this may be best to keep it protected due to repeated reverts by others.

--Cybertrax 20:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

sory about this i no ur bissy

i uploaded a picture i took with my camera of my snake named cobey wich is the name on the picture kinda but any ways u said it was going to be deleated y is it going to be deleated (rily i dont care because i dont no how to put it on my user page but still) and how do i do that thing that i tell where it came from i think it was identinfication can u just help me or im die of confeusion agin sory i no ur bissy thx for ur time --Rsivad 19:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

People are mean

Have you ever notice that Uncylopedia is making fun of you bot on Uncylopedia's Wikipedia page. :(

your robot removed my map image in the Battle of Teruel Article

Your robot removed my map image in the Battle of Teruel article. It is licensed under GNU Free Documentation License and was taken from wikimedia. I am not familiar with the goofy drop down window when you load the image.

GenghisTheHun 03:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)GenghisTheHun

Incomplete edit by OrphanBot

See This edit. The bot removed the first line of the image link, but left the rest unaltered. Can the bot be fixed to look for these?– Tivedshambo (talk) 18:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. --Carnildo 21:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Question about what bot can do

I was wondering how well OrphanBot can read {{fair use rationale}}. Like if the template had Replaceability=yes, could the bot tag the image as replaceable? If it can then that would be something to look into. Jay32183 20:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The bot's very limited in what it can understand about templates. It can identify templates by name with reasonable accuracy, but that's about the limit of what it can do. --Carnildo 22:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, good to know. Jay32183 22:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging by your bot

Can you please clarify what else I should do to make it clear to your bot that Image:Ivana Baquero in Pan's Labyrinth.jpg is created by me. According to a notice on my discussion page "the image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image". I beg to differ. I just made a header ==Source==, maybe that helps? For the second image that your bot tagged I still have to add the source/creator and I thank you and your bot for letting me know. Ik.pas.aan 19:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Bot job request

Hi, could it be possible to make OrphanBot drop slightly custumized version of {{idw-pui}} on the talk page of everyone who has uploaded images listed in Category:Unfree SXC licensed images, pointing them towards the listing here: Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images#SXC images. I feel it's time to clean it out that backlog, but someone is objecting on the grounds that I did not bother notifying every single uploader in person first... --Sherool (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I should be able to get to it sometime tomorrow. --Carnildo 08:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Images with no copyright tag as of certain day

Hi, I saw Orphanbot creates the per day subcategories in Category:Images with no copyright tag. Could orphanbot add the purge link to newly created per day categories. Like the per day categories in Category:Images with unknown source as of 1 March 2007. That would make things easier. Cheers, Garion96 (talk) 19:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Carnildo 08:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Porno link

The porno picture link in your sig at User:ANNAfoxlover/Autographs in my view is unacceptable - And no, not because it's between 2 men. Just because you oppose online censorship doesn't mean you need to go around making a POINT... Spawn Man 04:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me see if I've got this straight: You clicked on a link labeled "Porno-of-the-day", and are upset to find yourself looking a pornographic image? And as a side note, it's not two guys, it's just one. See Autofellatio for details. --Carnildo 08:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I actually thought it was a joke... Doesn't fix the fact of your point making... Spawn Man 23:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

HELP NEEDED

I definitely need help.anyway where do I put the image info of the images I uploaded?--FG90 00:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)