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 1929 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

Image deleted in article Public Health Agency of Canada

Image was justified under the rational it was the work of a public, government agency. It was also a free domain logo. Image was deleted and now I have to find the image again and upload it again. Reading from this comment page it seems your bot(s) have a history of doing this... Bretonnia (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

However, I did place the logo under the justification that it was a logo of a government agency, and I do believe that logo's are covered under the fair use rationale, correct? Bretonnia (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I see, I must have made a mistake somewhere then, I did remember marking it as a logo, I will simply re-upload the image with the proper authorization, thank you for your time. Bretonnia (talk) 19:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

=Atlantic 252

Can you please approve the File:Atlantic252.jpg image. It is permitted for usage by RTL Group for historical reasons on the wikipedia page for Atlantic 252. Thanks Enda Caldwell (talk) 11:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Enda Caldwell

Image has been removed for no any reason

Why the image of Cartoon Network Pakistan's as well as India's article has been removed.It was not an illigal image and there was no any copyright reason also so why,tell me the reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adyniz (talk • contribs) 07:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

The commenting out of the image tag messed up the formatting of the Hollywood Sign[1] section. Gerardw (talk) 14:38, 7 December 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,[2] 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.[3] (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? [4] —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 [5]

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.[6] 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 [7] 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. [8] 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 [9]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

[10] 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: [11] ,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[12]. 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: [13]. 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 [14] 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, [15]. 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 [16] 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.[17] 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 [18]. 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: [19] [20]. --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)

MBisanzBot

It was supposed to be substing templates, but I had the wrong box checked to include unicodifying as a big enough change to save, and also including things like commented out templates as things to subst (damn new AWB version). Should be fixed now. Sorry about that. MBisanz ^talk 06:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Carnildo/The 100

Is there any likelihood of an update to your excellent random article survey at some point? Once articles have "settled down" for a while then I guess changes are going to be less dramatic, but it has been some time since the last update and it would be interesting to see if anything has improved since then. Of all the random article surveys doing the rounds on Wikipedia, yours seems to be the most informative, and with a relatively large sample of articles it's a great source on how Wikipedia has been evolving. The good news is that next time you won't have to read through List of Barney and Friends Stage Shows again! :-) Regards, TwoMightyGods^Persuasion_Necessity 22:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Updating it takes a good deal of time. I'm not sure when I'll update it next. --Carnildo (talk) 07:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Faraarposter.jpg

Your bot has tagged Image:Faraarposter.jpg which has a full rationale, an external source and explanation of copywright. What do you want?? Its taggin every image I upload for film posters which is quite annoying. Please can you tell me how to evade the bot and what is wrong with it thanks. As you run the bot I feel you have a duty to help me. Cheers ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 16:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that you are using {{navbox}} to hold the source information. The bot does not and can not extract meaningful information out of that template to figure out if you've provided a source for the image. If you want the bot to stop bugging you, use an appropriate template such as {{non-free media rationale}}. --Carnildo (talk) 19:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that several editors who use those templates have uploaded hundreds even thousands of images using them. PLease don't tell me your bot is going to tag every image we have uploaded. Whatever we do somebody invents a bot where it is still isn't good enough and starts tagging legitimate rationales. It would mean having to sort out a whole new rationale system which can be copied and pasted . I'll see what I can sort out, but it is frustrating having all these new bots tagging images which have different requirements and programs ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 20:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC).

ImageTaggingBot only deals with new uploads, and only checks for sources and license tags -- and it isn't exactly a new bot with new requirements: I've been running it since mid-2006. You're confusing it with FairuseBot, which doesn't care how the rationale is presented, just that it contain the name of the article where the image is used, or a link that can be used to find the article. --Carnildo (talk) 21:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah I see. I uploaded Image:Vanaja.jpg earlier leaving an external link and copyright holder outside the box also. So far it seems to have evaded the bot. Is this what the bot is looking for? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 12:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The bot's looking for non-header, non-template text on an image description page, or for a filled-in source, author, publisher, or owner parameter in {{information}}, {{non-free use rationale}}, {{non-free media rationale}}, {{non-free image data}}, or any template that transcludes one of those. --Carnildo (talk) 19:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Invite to review a set of articles

Hi there. You participated in this ANI thread. I picked out the names of some editors I recognised, or who had extensive comments there, and I was wondering if you would have time to review the articles mentioned in the thread I've started here, and in particular the concerns I've raised there about how I used the sources. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 09:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

ImageTaggingBot

I've temp blocked your bot as it's been making some strange edits [21],[22], etc.. I'm gonna review/possibly revert the recent edits, please unblock when/if the issue's figured out. Cheers, ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 10:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:ManofIron.jpg uses a {{navbox}} template to format the information on the image description page. The bot quite reasonably interprets it as a navigation template, and ignores the contents. If people don't want their images to be marked as "no source", then they should stop using the damn thing.

Image:Ironman poster.jpg uses a fair-use rationale template I hadn't encountered before. I've modified the bot to be able to interpret it.

Since I've fixed the problems that can be fixed, I've unblocked the bot. --Carnildo (talk) 19:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the navbox problem comes from people using {{filmr}}. I could just copy the navbox code to a new template name and use that for filmr, it's not really any sort of fix, but would it allow your bot to read the source/rationale? Come to think of it, that wouldn't work at all :) I know jack about coding, do you have any suggestion? ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe have a bot subst those templates? Kelly ^hi! 19:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

This could work since ImageTaggingBot only reviews new images. Then we could mark {{filmr}} as deprecated and include a link to {{Film cover fur}} or WP:FURME. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

That will work. As long as what ends up on the image description page is either outside a template or in a template with meaningful parameter names ("source = " is good, "item1 = " is bad), the bot can handle it. --Carnildo (talk) 22:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Image deleted from article because image was moved to Commons

The NASA image Image:Yarlang tsango river tibet.jpg was moved to the Commons and deleted from the article it was in by your bot. How do I get the image back into the article? It is not at the Commons under any name I can find. I am asking you what to do because I do not know who else to ask. Thanks! –Mattisse (Talk) 13:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The image is on Commons under the name Image:Yarlung Tsangpo river tibet.jpg (note the slight differences in capitalization and spelling). It shouldn't have been marked for deletion -- I've contacted User:Mets501 to see what went wrong with his bot. --Carnildo (talk) 22:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for this, also (as well as fixing the page move problem below). –Mattisse (Talk) 22:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for taking care of Roman trade with India. Your help is very much appreciated! Regards, –Mattisse (Talk) 22:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyright information for Image:JackMcGurn.jpg and Image:LouisAlterie.jpg

Hi, i have added these two images to their respective articles in Wikipedia, today. These images are copyrighted, but are being used in wikipedia under fair use terms. I have added the source as to where the images were obtained from and also as to who probably owns the copyright. However, your bot is saying that i have not specified the source or who owns the copyright for the images. Moreover, it has re-added the tag after i removed it. I would greatly appreciate your help in this matter. Joyson Noel (talk)

You've got the source information wrapped up in a {{navbox}} template. Since navboxes are supposed to be used for listing related articles, the bot ignores them, and so doesn't see the source. --Carnildo (talk) 07:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I have just removed the tags, since the copyright information is provided. Joyson Noel (talk)

Dude, fix the bot. It has re-added the tags. Joyson Noel (talk)

I'm a good programmer, but writing a strong AI is rather beyond my skills. --Carnildo (talk) 18:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems it's Template:Filmr again. I'm not sure what should be done with it — should I just send it to TfD for discussion or would you have a better suggestion? Just to make things even more confusing, apparently that template is being used in both substed and unsubsted forms. Probably any change will need a bot run to implement it; I count about 2200 entries in Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Filmr. At least it helpfully provides a backlink even when substed. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's {{filmr}}: filmr uses a title of "Non-free film-related media rationale", while this template has a title of "Non-free biography-related media rationale". It's a great example of why the bot can't look inside {{navbox}} for source information: since navbox contents are completely free-form, the meaning of any field can change at any time.

As for what should be done about {{filmr}}: I'd suggest re-writing it to transclude {{Non-free media rationale}} similar to how {{Film cover fur}} does, then converting all current uses over to the new format. The subst'd copies will still be a problem for future bots, but ImageTaggingBot will only have trouble when someone uploads a new version of an old image. --Carnildo (talk) 21:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Aha, found it! It's a userspace clone with an incorrect backlink: User:Blofeld of SPECTRE/Bio rationale. Actually, it seems there are more: User:Blofeld of SPECTRE/Bio Rationale (with a capital R), User:Blofeld of SPECTRE/Retired bio rationale, User:Blofeld of SPECTRE/Screenshot and User:Blofeld of SPECTRE/Film poster. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Homeschooling newsletter for June 2008

	The Homeschooling WikiProject News
Issue Five • June 2008 • About the Newsletter
News Recent Project News User:Diligent Terrier has retired. Project member count reaches 37 members! Invite others using our invitation templates. 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 User:RC-0722. Newsletter delivered by User:RC-0722

Ofra Haza deleted images

The bot has just deleted all 3 images recently added by myself to the article Ofra Haza. I'd appreciate if you could explain the problem with how they were tagged. They all had acknowledged copyright licenses and comprehensive fair-use rationales, which included the source - no other information was available (e.g. the image creator) as is often the case, but in all other respects, the tagging and descriptions mirrored the way other images are dealt with all over Wikipedia. Looking at the comments above it seems that the bot may have problems with the Filmr template - is this the problem? I've used Filmr previously without this kind of problem developing. Brittle heaven (talk) 23:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like {{filmr}} was the problem for all three, combined with a deleting admin who didn't make sure that the "no source" tag was correct. Image:HazaOfra03.JPG and Image:HazaOfra02.jpg haven't been deleted yet; since Wikipedia policy is to use as little non-free content as possible, I'd recommend putting one of them back in the article and letting the other be deleted. --Carnildo (talk) 00:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Anchor store

I have nominated Anchor store, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anchor store. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

User:NewYork1956

Could you keep an eye on User:NewYork1956? (Contributions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/NewYork1956) He has a long history of uploading images in a rather cavalier fashion and many / most of these get deleted later. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 08:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Added to ImageTaggingBot's list of problem users. Any future uploads will be brought to my attention. --Carnildo (talk) 09:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Nunquam Dormio (talk) 09:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Three-digit hex triplets for Web colors

Since you report these don't work in Opera, I've added a statement to that effect in Web colors which is referenced from WP:Color; please feel free to edit this to reflect your experience more accurately. --JWB (talk) 04:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Signature

oh...Now My signature is eaten away and buried.....a omega !--
[+] Autographed by • RRaunak •
13:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Re

It's a rotten link.What do you mean? -- [+]►▌●√Ω ЯЯΛUNΛΣ● ▌◄■► 04:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey it shows downloading index.php But...I wont do it. I remember my mischief.-- [+]►▌●√Ω ЯЯΛUNΛΣ● ▌◄■► 04:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Great minds think alike

[23] [24] — CharlotteWebb 15:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal Of Images

I have update the licensing on all of my July images, and being the creator have released them to the public. I will undo your edits now that the images have been properly licensed. I am new to this and hope I did this correctly.Greenstrat (talk) 01:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: User:ImageRemovalBot

Hey. Your bot has deleted a couple of images which were deleted under I8 but had actually changed names when being moved to commons. Obviously, these deletions shouldn't have happened, but maybe your bot could raise a flag (or at least not delete the red links) if it sees "I8" in the deletion log? I've no idea if that would be easy to add, but it might help prevent accidental loss of images. Cheers, Ian¹³/t 12:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. --Carnildo (talk) 20:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:40px-Disambig-1bit.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:40px-Disambig-1bit.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Bourscheid image retouching

Thanks for the retouching, nice work, if I hadn't taken the pictures I would never have known there were kids in them.--Caranorn (talk) 10:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.

But if its going to be a huge issue, just let them kill it. --BenBurch (talk) 01:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

State, County & Cities - Governmental Copyright Option

Thank you SO MUCH for your clarification about public domain vs copyright-less. So what is the correct copyright licence for things that are in the public domain?

--Eckre (talk) 12:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

There are several dozen licenses, depending on why the image is in the public domain. For works that are in the public domain because of age or failing to comply with copyright formalities, there's a list at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Public domain. For works of the US federal government, there's a list at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/USA, or you could just use the generic {{PD-USGov}}. --Carnildo (talk) 19:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, what I mean is what is the correct license for things in the public domain because it was taken with non-federal tax payers money. I've looked at your lists and they are so broad, I don't know which one. I just want a definitive answer due to many wiki-tards who like to delete crap, yet will not help to telling me which license is correct. 100% of all non-federal government stuff is free to the public.

thanks.

--Eckre (talk) 14:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter where the money came from. What matters is who created it and when. --Carnildo (talk) 18:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

So... which licence? Creative Common 3.0? Which one?

--Eckre (talk) 19:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Which image? Who created it? When? --Carnildo (talk) 20:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Wilderness Diarrhea

Referring to the manual of style linked in the template you added, I find nothing significant relevant to the article. I'm sure you had something in mind, but unless you can be more specific, the addition is likely to be unhelpful. Calamitybrook (talk) 01:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The "Controversy" section, especially the subheadings, reads like a newspaper article. It's written in a "tell a story" style, rather than the "present the facts" style the rest of the article -- and much of the rest of Wikipedia -- uses. --Carnildo (talk) 02:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

---

That's much more helpful, but the provided link you've added is silent about the "tell a story" style, as well as "present the facts" style. As I understand it, you're definitely not talking about a copy editing style (as in style book, or the linked Wikipedia style manual). Perhaps "form" would be a more accurate term for what you are trying to describe. I'm not quite sure.

Since the link isn't relevant to your viewpoint, and is therefore confusing and unhelpful, can you remove it and perhaps replace it with something that is more germane to what you're trying to say? Possibly there is something among the massive amount of stuff on Wikipedia guidelines and policy that might be applicable. Calamitybrook (talk) 06:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Rather than asking for the tag to be removed, Calamitybrook, why not follow the guidance (rewrite in encyclopedic style) and then remove it yourself??? 140.139.35.250 (talk) 18:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

___________________________________

Hi Carnildo!

Thank you for your help by installing the cleanup notice and requesting rewrite in an encyclopedic style. Are my recent edits examples of what you requested?

We still have much cleanup to do, so please leave the cleanup notice as is. Thanks again. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a good start to me. --Carnildo (talk) 01:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've been working pretty hard on it and I think I addressed your cleanup request. Could you look at it to see if I missed anything? I certainly appreciate your help. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for checking it out and removing {{cleanup}}. Best regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

_________________________

Hi, welcome back.

You might be interested in looking at Wilderness Diarrhea and the Talk page that contains a discussion that Calamitybrook and I had while you were gone and is ongoing now. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Nobel icon

Template:Nobel icon has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Utternutter (talk) 21:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Cybersyn control room.jpg

Hi! Your bot made some changes into this image description implying it is an image of a person while in fact this is an image of an object. This led to need of some manual corrections after the bot. Can you please make the template used by the bot to handle properly not only images of people, but also historical objects and structures?--Dojarca (talk) 15:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with what the bot did. Perhaps you're thinking of the edits by User:Mdd? --Carnildo (talk) 02:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The bot wrote: It is a historically significant photo of a famous individual. Do you think the room is a famous individual?--Dojarca (talk) 11:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The bot did not write that, User:Mdd did. Have you actually looked at the edit history of the image? --Carnildo (talk) 18:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:LSSU Lakers logo 300px.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:LSSU Lakers logo 300px.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Gustav

See AN. There's an established consensus for the note. Please work to change consensus, not unilaterally. Cheers. rootology (C)(T) 06:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any such consensus. --Carnildo (talk) 06:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:HotTopicLogo.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:HotTopicLogo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup of title blacklist

I replied at the talk page. Regards, Daniel (talk) 13:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

FU Bot error?

See this. There's a Fair Use there... is this a bot error? rootology (C)(T) 15:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing wrong there. There's a fair-use rationale for Epilogue (Justice League Unlimited), and the bot will also accept that as a fair-use rationale for List of Justice League episodes. However, the image is used on Ace (Justice League), which it has no fair-use rationale for. --Carnildo (talk) 18:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see what happened there, I'll fix it. rootology (C)(T) 18:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

redirects

Your bot is violating WP:REDIRECT#Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken. e.g. [25] Hesperian 00:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

These redirect links are broken: the image has a fair-use rationale for a given named article, but the article is no longer at that name. It would be better if the bot could change the link directly rather than piping it, but some editors have put the links in sentences where the new title would not make sense, and the bot can't comprehend the English language to identify these cases. --Carnildo (talk) 01:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Image of John MacGregor

I understand the good work your bot does, cleaning up tons of crap. I do have some issues with the requirement that all image sources be specified-- see this discussion. There are instances where sources are simply irelevant: for example, paintings by artists who died a hundred years ago.

I'm also not clear on how images get targeted; see, for example, Image:Eleanor Roosevelt with Soong Mei-ling.jpg, which is also lacking source info, but which, unlike the MacGregor image, clearly does not pre-date 1923, and has been around seemingly unmolested just as long as mine.

Anyway, I know you're not the author of the policy, but if your bot could be called off until the image is actually deleted (or not), I would appreciate it. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 13:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

OrphanBot only targets images on the English Wikipedia, and only images that someone else has identified as not having source or copyright information. If the bot hasn't dealt with an unsourced image, it's either because nobody's spotted it yet, or because it's on Commons.

Current policy is that images need sources. OrphanBot does its best to make sure that people are aware of images with problems; part of that involves removing the image from articles a few days before the image is deleted. This gives people who aren't the original uploader but who are watching the article a chance to fix things. --Carnildo (talk) 21:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Interestingly, this image is in Wikipedia and on Commons. From what you're saying, it would seem that after the Wikipedia copy is deleted, OrphanBot will leave it alone if I restore it to the article? -- Mwanner | Talk 00:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If you can keep it on Commons. They also like for images to have source information. --Carnildo (talk) 02:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

UnderscoreRemovalBot

Your bot seems to swap underscores in interwiki links for spaces but that is not always the Right Thing™ as can be seen in this change. -- Darklock (talk) 02:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

FairUseBot - I disagree

Sorry Carnildo, but WRT to this, I just plain disagree.

Your bot's edit summary says "Image is not compliant with the non-free content rules" - umm, how exactly? Please, exactly how is it not compliant?

Now I have no wish to revisit the Beta-wars, I'm a big boy and I can write my own rationales, but I used historic-fur in good faith. The best "not compliant" argument I can see in your bot's message is "A TfD discussion has established that this template was problematic" - but hey, when I click through the link, what is the first thing I see? Through popups anyway, what I see is "The result of the debate was No consensus." Can you explain where you obtained the consensus of problematicity?

This is the same old, same old where some unspecified group decides to assign a bot to do an editor's task, i.e. explain to me what the problem is. As I say, I'm a big boy and I understand and can deal with the machinations. I'm calling this to your attention though - once again it seems that image "policy" is being decided by a limited group and enacted by fiat. Where is/was the transparency and opportunity for discussion?

I'll follow this up elsewhere (I have an outline sketch for a note to Carcharoth tomorrow) and it's not a huge flaming deal for me. But there does seem to be some inequity here. If I was a 500-edit newbie, I'd be pretty pissed right now. Franamax (talk) 05:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

At the time the bot tagged the image, it was used in the article Princess Grace Challenge Cup, but did not have a fair-use rationale for that article. The bot made a note of this in the template it added. Roughly an hour after the bot tagged, it, you removed the image from the article. Five days from now, the bot will take a second look at the image, note that it is no longer used in Princess Grace Challenge Cup, and remove the tag. Is there anything wrong with this? --Carnildo (talk) 07:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

You know what - you are right and I'm an idiot. I'm highly sensitized right now because of that decision on the {{historic fur}} template and when your bot does legitimate things that show up on my watchlist, I fly off the handle. Thanks - at last I understand those misdirected feelings of rage when someone dares to challenge my images. :) D'ohh! I definitely should know better by now. Franamax (talk) 09:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Fact: Fairusebot is dumb!

Thought You should know this, the bot mistakenly tagged the [[Image:HQFEAF.jpg]] without realizing that Changi Air Base is the former RAF Changi (which is a redirect to the former) even though it is stated very clearly on the article. Fact is, most of the editors within the scope of Wikipedia Aviation & Royal Air Force project knows this, so why this now? Think its time to further refine the bot? Cheers~! --Dave1185 (talk) 19:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks! I see that you have done the necessary tweaking to the dumb bot, please pardon me if you find me being annoying about them bots. Fact is, I hate bots... but just the dumb ones, which are not refine even after I send my feedback to the owners. Thanks again and cheer~! --Dave1185 (talk) 22:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

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 is harassing innocent uploaders.

Hi Carnildo. I've uploaded some non-free images and given them fair-use rationales. Your FairuseBot has suddenly tagged the images with "Image is not compliant with the non-free content rules" [26] [27] because somebody has been using 'my' images not compliant with the non-free content rules. This is a wrong way to do it because scoundrels inserting non-free images improper places will never have 'my' images on their watchlists - and the text "may be deleted" on the image pages is a threat that might worry the legal uploaders. Why should the uploader be advised that his image is being misused on countless wiki-articles? Some sleepy administrator might accidentally delete the image due to the threat placed by your robot. Instead I suggest that your robot insert a warning on the article discussion informing that Image.this-and-that will be removed from the article unless a fair-use rationale is being posted on the image page like BetacommandBot does it [28]. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 22:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you actually checked what the bot is doing? It has, as you suggested, placed a warning on the article discussion, and five days from now (two days before the image is eligible for deletion), it will take a second look at it, remove the image from any non-compliant articles, and remove the tag if the image is used properly in any articles. --Carnildo (talk) 00:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Carnildo. If a user is entirely interested in e.g. Danish special forces units and inserts Image:Hæren.png in List of special forces units - he would not be attentive when FairuseBot opens a new section called Image copyright problem with Image:GOCAC.jpg at the talk page since he hadn't inserted Image:GOCAC (remember he isn't interested in Israeli special forces). There is only a slim chance that he'll see the "The following images also have this problem: Image:Hæren.png" since the section's headline isn't addressed to him. BetacommandBot is placing a warning for each and every illegal image on the talk page.

Again - why should image uploaders be bothered every time someone is abusing fair-use images?

As long as a fair-use image has at least one valid fair use rationale any placing and removal of FairuseBot's templates would be a superfluous operation. FairuseBot should be reprogrammed not to worry innocent editors. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 22:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

OrphanBot

Hey there Carnildo, I was just looking over OrphanBot's latest conrtibs and I noticed that when it had marked an Image as no license and it notified the user who uploaded the photo of his error, I noticed that your bot forgot to sign its notification message. It appears that your bot used five tildes instead of four which would produce a date stamp only as opposed to a signature and a datestamp and I thought that I should let you know of its error :). Thanks and All the Best :), Mifter (talk) 01:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that's deliberate. By putting a link to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions where a signature would usually go, people are far more likely to ask questions there rather than on OrphanBot's userpage. --Carnildo (talk) 01:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

"Vandalism"?

Im curious to know how my edit to the Hindenburg disaster article constituted "vandalism". Seegoon (talk) 00:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't. The edit before yours, however, was. --Carnildo (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Jerry D. Bailey image

I posted this to the imager page: The opinion, and proposed deletion, expressed by this Wikipedia "deleter" defies logic and is without legal substance of any kind. Far more work goes into deleting this photo than the minor text insertion needed to meet this "deleter's" opinion of legal conformity. Wikipedia's purpose is to "build", not tear down. SIMPLE PROCEDURE: A biography bookcover picture in the person's Wiki biography has already be accepted and certified as proper and legal. Rather than spending massive ammounts of time needed to delete images by posting notices on the image page and contributor's page, then ultimately delete it, why not make one simple step: paste in the standardized precise wording that is acceptable for bio bookcovers? It is far, far less work and actually helps Wikipedia. Note many of the notifications on user pages go unattended because the person no longer contributes to Wikipedia so is unaware. Handicapper (talk) 14:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Eugenia Rawls image

I have added copyright information to fill the requirements of two bots, but EugeniaRawlsLittleFoxes.jpg has still been deleted. Please help me to get the photo back, as it is integral to the article. Thank you. Poodle Girl (talk) 01:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You haven't provided any source or license information. To do that, click on this link, replace what's there with the information, and click "save page". You can then put the image back in the article. --Carnildo (talk) 02:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked user

There is no point in posting image complaints on User talk:Rollosmokes‎, as he is an indef-blocked user. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It's faster and easier for the bot to post them than to try to figure out if the user has been indefinitely blocked. --Carnildo (talk) 02:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hiya

Your bot removed an image [29], and I am unsure where to find the IfD, as there was no notification of its impending doom. How to track down such? The image was named "Kirk.plaque.Riverside.jpg".- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

When you uploaded the image, you marked it as being a fair-use image of a building. This automatically put it on track for deletion, because it's almost always possible for someone to create a free-licensed replacement image. --Carnildo (talk) 01:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Tagging

Hi I tagged Image:MKLTcast.gif with a fairuse rationale. But it honestly may not be enough to classify it as a fairuse reasoning. I was trying to help the fan article at the time some 2 years ago, when wikipedia was not that tight on the licensing. If the reasoning is not good enough, please delete it without notifying me again. Benjwong (talk) 15:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The rationale is adequate for any bot, but you're missing a few points that a human will be looking for. In particular, you need to explain why the image is irreplaceable (if the show toured for over a year, surely there are more than a few people who took pictures of it?) and what it adds to the article that can't be conveyed with words. --Carnildo (talk) 00:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

FairuseBot seems to be running fast.

It's removing images tagged as "Disputed non-free" from articles in less than 7 days from the tagging. As per the the category verbiage such image have a minimum of a week to be fixed.

Please, stop the bot and check that it's working right.

Thanks,

- J Greb (talk) 11:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It removes images where some, but not all, of the uses are disputed after five days because if, after seven days, the images are still out of compliance with the policy, they're fair game for any admin to delete. --Carnildo (talk) 19:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It's funny, I thought the 7 day span was when the became fair game to delete from the unsupported articles and, if that orphans the image, the image as well. I don't see and notation at the collection point, the category page, that the image can be remove early. Could you point me to where the consensus was reached or policy stated that it was "OK" to force the issue after 5 days? - J Greb (talk) 22:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can remove an image at any time for any reason -- it's part of the whole "anyone can edit" bit. It's deletion that's got the seven-day limit on it. --Carnildo (talk) 23:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you add a maintenance tag, you change the rules. Those are supposed to stay until the the issue is dealt with, up or down, within the guidelines of the particular tag. At best, what you're bot is doing isn't dealing with the image issue, at worst it's hiding it. So again, can you point to something, aside from WP:IAR, that supports removing the tagged image before the clock has fully run based on the tag? - J Greb (talk) 23:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

If I understand what you're saying, it's better for the bot to remove the images immediately than to apply the tag, wait five days, and then see if the images are still out of compliance. It certainly would be less hassle for me. --Carnildo (talk) 00:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope, it's better the 'bot play by the rules and wait the 7 days. Removing the image hides the problem especially since it removes the link from the image page. It's worse when the bot is doing double duty in removing the image from the articlesand the tag from the image. - J Greb (talk) 23:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Image backlog

Just letting you know I am working the results of Fairusebot at User:AWeenieMan/furme/DFUI/Logos, but will need some time to sort the 1300 images done through today (of what looks like ~2500), since I'm the only one doing it. If there is a planned mass-bot delete of the images, could we hold off on that list? MBisanz ^talk 12:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

FairuseBot is going to remove images that are partially compliant with the NFCC from articles in five days, while admins are going to start deleting them after seven. I don't see any practical way of delaying either, but I will keep FairuseBot from tagging more images for a week to let you catch up. --Carnildo (talk) 00:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't mind the tagging at the moment, just the delinking (since I won't be able to tell what was where). If you want to keep doing the tagging, there is a 23 day backlog in the DFUI category, so it won't really hurt anything. If you could code it, a tool that would make my life easier would be a delinking tool. Sometimes I'll get a college logo that is used in 40 articles and should only be used in the 2 it has a FUR for. Being able to click a script that removes it from the other 38 would be really nice. Also, if you want I can give you a list of all the DFUI-non-logo images to start the delinking on. AFAIK I'm the only person touching DFUI and then, just logos. MBisanz ^talk 09:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

If you go back one revision in the history, you'll get a list of every page an image was out of compliance on; you can also look at the bot's edit log around the time it removed the template from the image. I've modified the bot so that in the future, it'll leave a link to the edit log in the edit summary when removing the tag from the image page.

I'll see what I can do about setting up a delinking tool. --Carnildo (talk) 22:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

FairuseBot

I have to say I find this bot and the ideas behind it repugnant. I am tempted to bombard the bot's talk to keep it from running. It annoys random users on all sides of the experience spectrum (Biting newbies and angering older users) without even the human interaction usually involved and repeatedly misunderstands what it is supposed to 'judge'. It is spam at its worst. You don't have to reply if you don't want to, I just wanted to express my hate for it to the person responsible for this atrocity. No personal offence intended. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 13:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

A quick tip: if you're making personal attacks, it's better if you don't close with "no personal offense intended". It just sounds silly. --Carnildo (talk) 00:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Image deletion

I don't understand how the image that was deleted could be used on the Kansas State Wildcats page, but not the football, baseball, basketball or any other related pages. This needs to be fixed.Topgun530 (talk) 14:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

What image are you talking about? --Carnildo (talk) 00:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:KSUWildcats logo.pngTopgun530 (talk) 14:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is that non-free images should be used as little as possible. Using it only on the overview page for Kansas State sports is clearly less than using it on every article for a Kansas State sport. --Carnildo (talk) 22:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion? The article looks much better with a picture.Topgun530 (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Hanadi Jaradat - Image Removal

I note that the image of Hanadi Jaradat was removed by the bot, notwithstanding that it was particularized as having been released into the public domain by her family. Is there any way to reconsider this deletion?

Dreadarthur (talk) 17:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Which image are you talking about? --Carnildo (talk) 22:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Notification to article talk page?

Hi. Just recently, the bot removed an image from Gold Diggers of Broadway (film), which came as a surprise to me, as there had been no notification about problems with the image on the article's talk page, which I have watchlisted. I'm sure that the bot notified the original uploader, and perhaps other editors who uploaded new versions of the image, but I believe in this case those editors are either inactive or not very active, meaning that, essentially, no one monitoring the article in question knew about the problems with the article or the impending removal.

Would it be possible for the bot to post a notice on the article(s) in which the image is used, as well as to the uploader(s)? It would be quite helpful in heading off these problems before they reach the point of (unnecessary) deletion. Thanks! Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 19:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

By the time ImageRemovalBot gets involved with an image, the image has already been deleted, and there's no point in notifying anybody. My other bots will place a notice on the article talkpage if doing so is likely to get the image kept. --Carnildo (talk) 20:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

That's great. Can I ask what criteria determines an image that is likely to be kept? Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 23:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Right now, my bots will only post a notice on an article talkpage if there's something wrong with the image's fair-use rationale. Missing source or copyright information is something that the uploader is best able to provide. --Carnildo (talk) 02:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. I do want to point out, however, that for images which the uploader found on the Net, an image search by another editor might be able to help fill in the blanks. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 02:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Too much information is better than not enough. While the uploader may in the best position to completely tag an image, they may not be the only person capable of doing so. User:Stifle states that he deleted Image:RickettsCrest.jpg because it was marked by User:FairuseBot. There was no notification given on the uploader's talk page (there was a 2006 notification by OrphanBot, but Stifle stated he had made the deletion because of the behavior of FairuseBot) and no notification given in the talk page of the article. If Stifle is correct that FairuseBot had tagged the image and did not notify the uploader, this is very poor behavior. Since the uploader has been inactive for so long, the talk page of the article should also have been used for notification. --Karnesky (talk) 16:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it? I've had more complaints about my bots flooding peoples' talkpages than I've had about the bots not notifying people. In the specific case of Image:RickettsCrest.jpg, the bot decided that the uploader had already recieved a notification about problems with the image, so it should not give a second notice. --Carnildo (talk) 19:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the balance of complaints you have received, but I certainly see several posts that do ask for more notification on the present page, so perhaps you have shifted too far towards silent operation. There is surely middle ground between flooding (e.g. User_talk:Giantcn) and insufficient notification? I don't think that anyone would claim that a second message after one that was almost two years old (as in the specific case of Image:RickettsCrest.jpg) would possibly be considered "flooding." Similarly, I don't think you'd receive any complaints if you posted a notice on the talk page of the article that used the image.

In the worst examples of flooding, your bot has the same timestamps for multiple warnings. Perhaps it could cache images found over the past few minutes & give one aggregate warning that listed every relevant image found during that period?

In any case, I would imagine that you'd have few complaints if your bot pinged the article talk page more often & was willing to send out "second notices" if your bots took another action and some time has passed since the first notice. (I'd imagine that time period would be one week, as that is the current deletion warning period in many cases; at the very worst, I can't imagine anyone complaining about a second notice if a month had past. You just can't expect a two year old notice to do anybody any good). --Karnesky (talk) 19:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Giantcn's talkpage was the very first time one of my bots flooded a talkpage, not long after the bot started leaving talkpage notifications. I've spent almost three years since then working out ways to keep the complaints at a minimum. My bots already group notifications: if you had looked at FairuseBot's recent activity, you would have seen the bursts of user talkpage edits.

My bots will give second notices if the user is archiving their talkpage on a regular basis: the bots check for a link from the user talkpage to the image; if they find one, they assume it's part of a recent notice and won't give a second one. --Carnildo (talk) 22:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Fairuse Bot

Feel free to ramp it up again. I've gotten the logo backlog down to a manageable amount and I'll ping you if it gets too high again. MBisanz ^talk 03:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Image:PashutVeAmiti.ogg

This image was missing a specific rationale for its use in the article Music of Israel. I have added the rationale, and deleted the deletion tag. I hope this was the right thing to do.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. --Carnildo (talk) 07:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Bot and the PolandGov tag

Hello there. Every now and then I receive new comments from the bot stating that I've "indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use", with a link to some historical image. True, in all cases I was the original uploader. However, all of the images were originally uploaded with the {{PolandGov}} tag, as they come from the Poland.gov portal (or its' sub-portals), under explicit permission to use them in wikipedia from the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Some copyright paranoids apparently deleted the tag and marked the images as "fair use" even though they were PD, but it's up to them to clarify such problems, as the ones reported by the bot. I uploaded the images as PD and can defend that, but I can't defend the statement that they are "fair use". The Ministry specifically allowed us to use them under one vague condition that they are not used "against the aims of the Polish state", or something along those lines. As the statement was that vague, it could be safely interpreted as "use it freely as long as you don't break the law".

Anyway, I don't have much time for WP these days. Please, could you teach your bot to contact the people who marked the images as "fair use" instead? I've seen too many images deleted because of that already, which doesn't help Wikipedia or other related projects. //Halibutt 10:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Past Masters, Volumes One and Two

Formal FUR for the images in question have been fixed. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:PythonProgLogo.png

Thanks for uploading Image:PythonProgLogo.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. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 02:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The original uploader of the image was User:Cvrebert, I just converted it to PNG. It is them who should be asked. --Fibonacci (talk) 03:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The bot's got no way of knowing this. --Carnildo (talk) 03:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

That's why I'm telling you. --Fibonacci (talk) 10:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

FairuseBot message

FairuseBot left me a message about an image, but the wikilink had an extra namespace prefix: File:Image:Regis-logo-sm.gif Also, the message wasn’t signed properly, i.e. there was no datestamp. Anyway, since the image has been replaced by a png version, I went ahead and deleted it myself. Cheers! —Travis^talk 12:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I've fixed the message the bot will leave. --Carnildo (talk) 20:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

User talk pages

Yes, I know it's acceptable for people to remove messages from their talk pages. But it's also acceptable for me to restore them, when the offense has been repeated. -- Zsero (talk) 12:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

No, that is called harassment. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you're wrong. The user talk page is for communication with the user. When the user has done something wrong, in this case made a blatantly false accusation and abused AIV, they need to be told that they have done so. The fact that they've done it before and been told off for it, and subsequently removed that message, doesn't mean they must never again be told off for that offense. If they do it again, they get another message. -- Zsero (talk) 18:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Giving the editor another warning would be completely permissible, but that is not what you did. You reverted [30] him and restored the entire thread, which is explicitly described in the official Wikipedia Harassment policy as being user space harassment ("restoring such comments after a user has removed them"). --Kralizec! (talk) 18:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Image clean up idea

I've been looking through Category:User-created public domain images (and a bit in Category:Public domain images) and was wondering how viable a request for a bot run through especially the user-created category, to check for which are unused, would be. I nominated a bunch of orphaned unused personal photos for deletion today, and that was just the tip of the iceberg. I was thinking extra categories like Category:Unused User-created public domain images uploaded in May 2007 could be added to speed up cleaning and general queue reduction there, and to make finding the relative trash easier. What do you think? rootology (C)(T) 06:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

This seems like something that would be better done with a direct database query. Why don't you post it on Wikipedia:Bot requests and see if someone with Toolserver access picks it up? --Carnildo (talk) 06:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. rootology (C)(T) 06:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Image deletion: Pebbles, Volume 6 LP cover in the English Freakbeat, Volume 6 article

I have restored the image in the article. Unlike the typical situation, the CD reissue of Pebbles, Volume 6 (LP) was placed in a different series as English Freakbeat, Volume 6; that is the reason that the second image was placed there. (The article explains why, in case you are interested). There shouldn't be any problem with the basic rationale; I have uploaded several dozen images and have had no other concerns raised. Please advise if you still feel that there is a problem. I must say, supposedly Wikipedia likes images, but they sure get dropped a lot. Shocking Blue (talk) 12:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It's got a rationale for the use in Pebbles, Volume 6 (LP), but it doesn't have one for the use in English Freakbeat, Volume 6. If you want the image to remain in the latter article, add a rationale explaining why it needs to be there. --Carnildo (talk) 19:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Got it; didn't know I needed to. I'll do the same for the image in the other direction, because I use the CD cover image in the LP article as well. Shocking Blue (talk) 08:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Bot working properly?

This image seems to have a good rationale. If it's imperfect, could you correct it and restore the image to Military of the Republic of China? Thanks. John Smith's (talk) 18:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It's got a rationale for Republic of China Military Police, but not for Military of the Republic of China. If you want it used in that article, feel free to write a rationale explaining why it's needed there. --Carnildo (talk) 19:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Quite a few of my images were deleted by your bot. =(

Hello - I do hope that you can help me. I am still fairly new to wikipedia and most everyone has been very nice to me. I maintain the Clint Catalyst entry. I saw today that quite a few of my images were deleted by your bot. Please help me to make sure this does not happen again. I had full permission for all but 2 of the images {I did not put those back up, as I am still waiting for the owners to reply to me}. I put the other removed images back up, but it was quite the pain & I want to make sure this does not happen again. I have forwarded permission from all parties to the wiki permissions email - they wrote back confirming that permissions were received. Why is this happening? I greatly appreciate your help! Tallulah13 (talk) 18:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I think your bot hates me & TBH, I hate it too=

RE: photo on Elizabeth MgGrath page... her photo keeps getting deleted =( I am BEGGING you to help me. I only work on her page and Clint Catalyst's, and I have been having this problem with both. The image of Liz was obtained directly from her, it was taken by her husband and they gave me permission to use it. I sent this permission to wiki permissions email. I really appreciate your help, because it is turning into a big hassle having to re-upload all of these images so often. Tallulah13 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC).

It looks like the images were deleted because the deleting admin couldn't verify that the permission you claimed was correct. For future uploads, make sure you've forwarded the permissions email at the same time you upload the image, put a note on the image description page saying that you've done so, and make sure you've added the appropriate copyright tag to the image description page. --Carnildo (talk) 01:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your time. I have always forwarded permissions before uploading the images & I alwasy note in the image that I have done so. To my knowledge, I am using the correct copyright tag also. Anyway - I got all of them re-added, so hopefully they will stay up this time! Best wishes Tallulah13 (talk) 16:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Good work

Good work with FairuseBot (although it's backlogging CAT:DFUI something fierce). I'm starting to look at Category:Screenshots of music videos — it won't be doable by a bot, but from a fair use point of view it seems that a good number of these fail NFCC8. What do you think? Stifle (talk) 11:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Also check out ANAPROF, ANAPROF 2004, and subsequent years. The team logos need to be removed from all these articles as violations of NFCC3a and 8. Can you do that or should I list it at WP:BOTREQ? Stifle (talk) 11:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I can handle removing the images, if you give me a list of which ones to remove.

As for the music video screenshots, I agree that most of them fail NFCC #8, but a number of them could pass if the article were expanded to include a few paragraphs discussing the music video. --Carnildo (talk) 05:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The images are:

• Image:AFC Euro Kickers.png
• Image:AlianzaFC.jpg
• Image:ArabeUnido.png
• Image:Chiriqui.png
• Image:AtlVeraguense.png
• Image:Plaza Amador.jpg
• Image:Sffc4.jpg
• Image:Logo Sporting '89 (2008).png
• Image:TauroFC.png
• Image:Panama ViejoFC.png
• Image:Colon River.png
• Image:Chorrillo FC.png
• Image:Sporting89.png
• Image:Chepo Logo.jpg
• Image:AD Orion.png
• Image:PanAzucar.png
• Image:PoliciaNacional.png

They should be removed from all articles which have a title beginning with ANAPROF (including ANAPROF itself) and Primera A (Panama) per NFCC3a and 8, and then tagged as orphaned or just deleted.

I'll be working through the music video screenshots as I have time. Stifle (talk) 17:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Carnildo (talk) 03:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. Stifle (talk) 08:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I know I accidentally used the wrong permissions

I accidentally chose the wrong permission...But people usually give you a chance to fix the problem by alerting you to the problem on your talk page, not just by obliterating the image. Can you tell me where I might now find Image:Condensedmudrawikisonya.jpg Digital Mudra (1988 – 1989) featured people making hand signs, here the lower two images feature the sculptor Kati Casida and her husband John E. Casida. so I can fix the problem? Can you retool your bot so it gives people the traditional 7 days when they make a mistake? thanks. Saudade7 07:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the first user in just this last week I've seen think your bot is deleting images. Do you think a big obnoxious note on that issue would be worthwhile on the bot's talk page or something? Although I did notice the polite FAQ at the top of this page, of course. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It's already on the OrphanBot's userpage and on the top of the FAQ. I could add a "deleted by" to ImageRemovalBot's edit summary, but I'm not sure how helpful that would be -- or if deleting admins would appreciate widely-visible announcements of their actions. --Carnildo (talk) 08:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

anniversary and solitary-year links

Hi Carnildo—I remember that you were one of the first WPians (late 2005) from whom I learnt valuable lessons about copyright; I was among those who were disappointed that you took a long break after that. To the point at hand: I noticed your post at the bot application, and wondered whether you were now convinced that inline blue links to dm/md pages were rather useless in all but exceptional cases (I can't think of any, frankly). An option that has received enthusiastic support recently at MOSNUM talk (although there were naysayers as well) is to cherry-pick what an editor believes are the one or more most useful chronological links and instead to insert them in the "See also" section at the bottom. Thus, they are both more prominent (I think it's harder than people normally believe to get readers to click on any links, let alone ones that lead to a sea of less relevant and fragmentary facts), and can be more explicit through piping ("Notable events in 1990/October 1990", etc, or on extremely rare occasions, "Notable events on September 30 through the ages", etc). It's far more inviting, and those of us who are keen to avoid the dilution of high-value inline links will be seen off by such a move. Tony (talk) 03:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:Di-missing article links missing description details

Dear uploader: The Template you made as Template:Di-missing article links is missing a Template Documentation and/or other details on its Template page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers. If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Spitfire19 22:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Photographs of Istvan Kovats

Greetings!

I saw that you removed images of Istvan Kovats, in this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istvan_Kovats

His photos are mine, and it's an old familiar photo, what I uploaded. Here are some informations. My identity card with my signature, with "MagyarTürk" nickname: You can see, that's photos were mine, please put back that pictures.

http://xs.to/xs.php?h=xs132&d=08434&f=pa210107939.jpg

Cheers! MagyarTürk (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC).

Main Page redesign

The Main Page Redesign proposal is currently conducting a straw poll to select five new designs, before an RFC in which one will be proposed to replace the Main Page. The poll closes on October 31st. Your input would be hugely appreciated! Many thanks, Pretzels^Talk! 10:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Timeline for the day of the September 11 attacks / Windows on the World

"Anna Lavéaux" - i can find no reference to this person or their family outside Wikipedia - i would say that they are fictional - in addition bodies from the former site of Windows on the World were not recovered until months later, not on the night of the attacks. Paul Austin (talk) 09:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Checking Titleblacklist against existing titles

Hi, would it be possible to share your code (is it a script on the toolserver?) for checking Titleblacklist? I noticed your posts on MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist) and I believe other language Wikipedias could definitely benefit from this. —AlexSm 22:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The code's available at User:Carnildo/wiki-regex-tester.pl. You need to have Perl installed on your computer to run it, and you need to get a list of article titles somewhere (I use the "List of page titles" file from the enwiki database dump). --Carnildo (talk) 23:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

About the photos on the Riverside Shakespeare Company site

I notice that you've begun deleting photos on the Riverside Shakespeare Company site, a site to which I have contributed numerous photos and posters that I own and/or designed and contributed in order to document this important historic New York theatre company. Last spring, I went through extensive correspondence with Mangostar, who had questioned some of the photos and posters, each of which I subsequently documented carefully, putting copyright info on each photo and poster, and releasing to the Wikipedia Commons. I'm now uncertain what you are questioning in regards to the photos/posters that you have had deleted. I have gone through this process before, and it would be a shame if these photos & posters are not released to the general public, as I have designated that they be. Your assistance, and/or help would be appreciated. The site won a Wikipedia Newcomer award last spring, and I was invited to the Wiki conference in Alexandria this past summer to talk about scholarship on Wikipedia (though I could not attend as I was in Berlin on other matters.) Weimar03 (talk) 05:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

If you're referring to Image:RIVERSIDE MANDRAKE AT SHAKESPEARE GARDENS 53 small REVISED.jpg, Image:RIVERSIDE MANDRAKE AT SHAKESPEARE GARDENS 80.jpg, Image:RIVERSIDE ROMEO & JULIET TYBALTS GHOST SMALL 2.jpg, or Image:RIVERSIDE MIDSUMMER NIGHTS DREAM 1978 10.jpg, User:Lifebaka deleted them because he considered them redundant with other images on Wikipedia. If you're referring to Image:RIVERSIDE GREENSHOW MERRY WIVES FINAL 1983.jpg or Image:RIVERSID MIDSUMMER POSTER 1 small.jpg, they were removed because User:Soundvisions1 apparently didn't believe you created the posters -- you'll have to take that up with him. If you're referring to the removals on April 22, 2008, the images didn't have adequate source information. If you're referring to something else, you'll have to be specific. --Carnildo (talk) 06:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

FairUse Bot

Hi. I'd like to offer you my thanks for FairUse Bot. When I first got a message from it, I was annoyed, as I usually am when I get an image-related bot-generated message, but then I realized that the bot was actually being helpful in pointing out missing FURs and so on. It's so refreshing to have a bot doing image work that doesn't seem hell-bent on deleting images no matter what. I especially appreciate that the bot posts to both the uploader of the image and the talk page of affected articles, which creates a greater opportunity for interested parties to fix the problems the bot has noticed.

So, please accept my humble and sincere thanks. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 05:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Carnildo (talk) 07:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thomas anders this time cover.jpg

OK
Thank you!
I changed it. :)
James Michael 1 (talk) 07:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Question

this probably seems like a silly question, howevere, how do I access the image description page. I have only encountered a spot to add a description during my first upload?? I am quite new to creating data in wikipedia.l santry (talk) 20:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)santryll santry (talk) 20:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

You can get to the image description page by clicking on the image anywhere it's used, or on any link to the image, or by typing "Image:insert your image name here" into the search box and clicking "go". Once you're viewing the description page, you can modify it by clicking "edit this page", just like you'd do for an article. --Carnildo (talk) 07:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

FairUse Bot Error

Hi, Carnildo. I received a message from FairUse Bot today which I'm fairly sure is an error. I'd already corrected the issues it mentioned in its message earlier today, well before I received the message from your bot. Not sure how I should react to the message, since I've already addressed the concerns it raised. Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks. Soundout (talk)

If you're referring to Image:WarOfTheWorlds RadioTales.jpg, you fixed the problem between when the bot marked the image as not saying which article it was fair-use in, and when the bot notified you. The bot will deliver notices in batches to keep the number of "You have new messages" down, but it means that sometimes will be a few hours between when the bot marks an image and when it notifies the uploader. --Carnildo (talk) 07:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• It's so silly that a logo removed from some article because a rational has not be put on for some of the articles. thumb|100px
  Good example is the UCLA athletics logo. You want every single article using this logo to have a rational which basically say the same. Where is common sense?  :) Ucla90024 (talk) 15:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

If it's silly that an image needs so many rationales, it's usually a sign that the image shouldn't be used in all those places. In the case of Image:UCLA Bruins Logo.png, I'd remove it from everything except UCLA Bruins and maybe University of California, Los Angeles. --Carnildo (talk) 22:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

User:OrphanBot

Would it be possible to send me the sourcecode? I want to use it (with a couple of changes) on dewiki.

Many thanks in progress --Wuzur (talk) 19:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh and (if possible) the code of User:ImageRemovalBot would be nice too --Wuzur (talk) 20:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you just oversaw it. A simple "no" would be enough, too --Wuzur (talk) 15:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I should be able to give you the code sometime later today or tomorrow. --Carnildo (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay -- I had to fix a serious bug in the image-removal code. The code for ImageRemovalBot is at User:ImageRemovalBot/removebot.pl and User:ImageRemovalBot/removebot-followup.pl, OrphanBot's code is at User:OrphanBot/orphanbot.pl, and the support libraries are at User:FairuseBot/libBot.pm and User:FairuseBot/Pearle.pm. If you have any questions about using them, or about modifying them to work on dewiki, feel free to ask. --Carnildo (talk) 06:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Tanks for that and no problem with the delay. --Wuzur (talk) 19:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Timeline of young people's rights in the United Kingdom

Hi, I tried to come to terms with the image policy, but it's waaay beyond me. I would be grateful if you could please explain why the image of is ok here but not on the timeline. Also Sarah Payne as here SJB (talk) 21:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Which image are you talking about? --Carnildo (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

James Bulger [31]

The bot also seems to be removing Sarah Paynes' pic, but the photo remains on the timeline mysteriously.[32] 78.146.83.204 (talk) 10:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Apologies Sarah Payne intact, Wells and Chapman removed.[33].SJB (talk) 11:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't be sure because you still haven't specified which images you're talking about, but I'm guessing that it's FairuseBot that's removing the images. In that case, it's removing the images because they don't have adequate explanations for why the images need to be used in the articles in question. Further, since the images are non-free, they probably shouldn't be used in non-specific articles such as Timeline of young people's rights in the United Kingdom. --Carnildo (talk) 00:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Image deletion...

Ok. I'm done. Everything that is still deleted from that screw up is either not FU, on my list of corrupted uploads or an oversight. The images still to be restored will be done later (I need sleep) and I'll contact the relevant projects to figure out where the images went. If you need to restart/rollback edits of the deleted image bot, you can do so now. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 08:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Volta River Authority logo.png

Hello Carnildo, I am unclear why your bot got rid of this image. What additional information did you require for its use?--Natsubee (talk) 09:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The bot removed it from Akosombo Dam because the image did not have an adequate explanation as to why the use in that article meets the requirements for non-free content. --Carnildo (talk) 21:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Tiferesyisrael48.jpg

Why was Image:Tiferesyisrael48.jpg deleted? Can you undelete it so I can add the necessary info. And it future, whoever wants to delete an image should notify its uploader. Thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 02:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Removing image with inadequate rationale

I have a number of issues with this robot as it's removing images from articles claiming "Removing image with inadequate rationale" but

• It is not notifying the image creator.
• It is not tagging the images themselves which may be watch-listed by those interested in it.
• It it not explaining what is inadequate about a rationale meaning people have no idea what needs to be fixed. Many people who add rationales have read the documentation and fill out the rationale forms to the best of their understanding. The robot's failure to explain what's wrong means we don't know if the actual failure is in the person who created the robot's understanding of what should go on a rationale, the robot's parsing of a rationale, the rationale creator did not understand something, or it's one of those cases where two people look at the same thing and come up with differing interpretations.

Please reply both here and drop a note on my talk page as it may be a week or more before I get a chance to check back. Thank you. --Marc Kupper|talk 21:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

To answer your points:

• The bot does notify the image creator, if the image has problems everywhere it is used. Otherwise, it puts a note on the talkpage of every article with problems.
• The bot does tag the images.
• The bot does explain what is inadequate, by means of the tag it adds to the image description page.

What you're seeing right now is the bot's followup, which takes place five days after all of the above. --Carnildo (talk) 21:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I see what happened which is that the 'bot removed the tag on the image at the same time it removed the image from the article. When I looked at the image to see how it had been tagged there was no tag nor was there anything on the image's talk page. It never occurred to me that a robot would add and then remove a tag as part of its work. I ended up taking a look at how someone had used the image and as it was not a good fit for the article I removed the image from the article rather than figuring out how to write a rationale that would seem plausible. One suggestion would be that when the robot comments an image out of the article that the the edit-comment mention that comments have been left on the article's talk page. I missed that it had left a notice on the talk page week earlier but now see the notice and it explains the problem with the image well. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:StarTrekInsigniaProblem.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:StarTrekInsigniaProblem.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 19:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Bugs in ImageRemovalBot

Looks like ImageRemovalBot is a bit buggy. While the images are available (see this version ) , your bot removed the linking here and here claiming they are deleted.

The images are still available :

Any idea whtz wrong ? Can you look into this ? -- Tinu Cherian - 11:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The images are lacking an image description page, and the Wikipedia API says the images are missing. It appears to be related to Wikipedia bug #15430. Since Wikipedia insists that the images are missing, there's not really anything I can do about it. You could try editing the image description page to add proper license and source information, and see if that fixes things. --Carnildo (talk) 20:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

List of county roads in Alachua County, Florida

I've been waiting for somebody to create the images for List of county roads in Alachua County, Florida that your bot deleted. I hope you don't mind, but I'm going to undo what it did. ----DanTD (talk) 13:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

ImageRemovalBot

Hey Carnildo. I saw that you were running ImageRemovalBot over the list wantedfiles.txt and that's great. One minor thing: I understand (from reading the bot's approval page) that it would be a right pain in the ass to make one edit to removal all red-linked images, but perhaps if there are over 10 or something, the bot could catch those and let a human review them? I ask because of pages like http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_State_Highways_in_Kentucky_(1001-2000)&action=history where the page history has literally been flooded. Thoughts? :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 22:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

There's no good way to do that, either: the bot doesn't have either a memory of what pages it's edited or knowlege of what pages it's going to edit. The situation is also quite rare: apart from the Kentucky State Highways pages, I'd only expect it to happen to things like episode lists or cast lists that are cleaned of fair-use overuse. --Carnildo (talk) 05:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed image from various articles

Hey there, my picture of "South China Tiger with Blesbuck" has recently encountered some copyright issues with another administrator and it was removed from various articles, however i have since dealt with the copyright issue and explained it to the administrator. Do you mind undoing the removes of that image from those articles?

I wish that the image can be placed back onto those articles, thank you.

China's Tiger (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 10:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC).

I can't figure out which image you're referring to. --Carnildo (talk) 23:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey again, Sorry for not being clear, this is the image that i am refering to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Stud_327_with_Blesbuck.jpg

China's Tiger (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 12:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC).

Image:Ignatius colours.GIF

Hi.

I created this image entirely by myself using MS Paint. I have absolutely no idea why it has been deleted not once, but twice, from Saint Ignatius' College, Adelaide. I'm sure nobody can really copyright blue, red and gold stripes, surely?

Can you pleae get your bot to stop doing this.

Thankyou

Wjs13 (talk) 09:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

You haven't indicated on the image description page that it's ineligible for copyright: the tag for that is {{PD-ineligible}}. --Carnildo (talk) 21:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:AFC-Logo.png

According to the deletion log you deleted Image:AFC-Logo.png today. Can you tell me why you did this? But it still seems to exist so I am a bit confused. Martin 12:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The image itself is on Commons. What I deleted was a blank image description page here on Wikipedia. --Carnildo (talk) 20:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. Martin 22:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Updated copyright details

Hi, Some of my images got deleted from my articles due to incomplete copyright info. I have updated the information. Can I put the images back? Divya Sivaramakrishnan (talk) 11:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

If you've got it correct, yes. --Carnildo (talk) 12:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Please save my pictures!

The barbarian robot (ImageTaggingBot) want to delete my free pictures (Image:Hun corv1.jpg and Image:Hunedoara castle towers.jpg ) What can I do? Can you stop these deletions ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stears56 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:ImageTaggingBot#Image:Mgm_Hoover_the_talking_seal.ogg

Somehow your Image Tagging bot managed to tag a sound. Isn't there some process preventing this, cause according to the bot page, sounds are not included in its tasks. Also, the tagging was the result of a template being deleted without replacement -- which I have now fixed. I think the bot should check for this sort of thing to some degree. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policies treat images and sounds the same: they both need source information and license information. I called the bot "ImageTaggingBot" because it works with things in the "Image" namespace. --Carnildo (talk) 09:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

User:ImageTaggingBot

Please do contact them. And then maybe you can explain why you can't be bothered to follow the basic rules of uploading images. --Carnildo 07:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I think people understand that Wikipedia needs to cover its butt when it comes to copyright laws, but your bot does it in such a harsh and inhumane manner that people get upset when their image is deleted, only to have a bunch of text stating that their image was removed by a person (or thing) that can't be reasoned with.

I think your bot is well programmed (in fact, I'd like to know how it works) and does a valid and rewarding job, but I think the interface with how this job is attacked needs to be improved. Wikipedia had a donation of almost $1,000,000 dollars to have its interface improved and I think this is one of them.

I appreciate your time. I apologize if this came off as harsh. I am looking to improve Wikipedia just as much as you are but I can see how this is frustrating to the average user. I think there should be standard forms that the user has to fill out - depending on each license they use - so that an image cannot be submitted without this information being provided.

I would love to discuss.

Altonbr (talk) 07:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions on how to improve things? Any system needs to react quickly, needs to be able to handle 2000+ images per day for years on end, and needs to produce the correct result even when dealing with people who don't understand copyright and don't want to learn. --Carnildo (talk) 00:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm wondering if we're attacking the problem from the wrong angle. What about not allowing uploads to be submitted without a license properly selected and filled out? e.g. if I use a screenshot of GPLed software, a certain form comes up that forces me to fill in related information. Then, with a different license, there is a different set of required values. Once the information is validated, MediaWiki renders the license template for the user. That way there is no chasing people to include a license, but instead forces them to include it before allowing them to submit their content. Is this a possibility? Altonbr (talk) 04:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Who or what is going to do the validation? If you're going to have people do the validation, keep in mind that checking 2000 images a day requires about 25 hours of mind-numbing effort. If you're going to have a computer do it, you've got the twin problems that computers are very easy to fool, and that people see nothing wrong with lying to a computer.

The fundamental problem with forcing people to do things when uploading is that to the uploader, getting the image onto the site is important to them, while doing the right thing is not. --Carnildo (talk) 05:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Ursula Franklin image

I undid your bot's deletion of the image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ursula_Franklin_at_book_launch.jpg from the entry Ursula Franklin because permissions asked me to forward an email from the copyright holder authorizing use of the image under the GNU Free Documentation License. As you can see on the image page, I was given until December 12/08 to forward this email. I forwarded an e-mail from the copyright holder to permissions on Monday, December 8/08 and I am still waiting for a reply. Please give me a chance to get this issue resolved. Bwark (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

OTRS ticket for this image has just been granted. Bwark (talk) 20:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Title blacklist

I really do promise to stop putting anything on the blacklist that might be overbroad. But this morning, the њ character was being used in pagemoves, so I added it to the Hagger registry. Hope this is OK, and please don't block me for it.  :) NawlinWiki (talk) 12:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It looks like a safe addition (the character is only used in five titles on enwiki and it's Cyrillic, so it doesn't case-fold into anything else), but it doesn't look like a very useful addition: there are so many ways of formatting "HAGGER" that you'll never block them all. --Carnildo (talk) 09:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

bot

Um Carnildo I recieved a message from Orphanbot about an image that I uploaded...but I haven't uploaded any images t the wik....ever. Is it just a glitch or should I investigate further?Rayfire (talk) 06:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh...the bot just got around to that? I thought it was deleted like a week after it was uploaded. Oh well thanks, sorry to bother you.Rayfire (talk) 18:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

bot

Um Carnildo I recieved a message from Orphanbot about an image that I uploaded...but I haven't uploaded any images t the wik....ever. Is it just a glitch or should I investigate further?

Tom Papania page

I undid your bot's deletion of the image at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PapaniaLowResolution3.jpg as valid response is provided. My assertions are threefold, and I hold for your perception of my cause. 1) This living person is secluded within certain circles, invariably meeting within exclusive events; 2) Requests made for a free-use/PD have been left unanswered since before the initial Wiki publishing in April, 2006; 3) This limited-resolution rendering photograph, of which I own the original, should be in the scope of fair-use as it depicts an early time-period for which a recent photo would not suffice as it constitutes the beginning period for the founding of this organization. Upon request, I can elaborate on any of these items. Markdandrea (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

User:ImageTaggingBot

Any chance of making it conform with {{bots}}? Thanks. — neuro^(talk) 16:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It currently understands {{nobots}} on user talkpages; the other variants are not currently supported, and it will never pay attention to {{bots}}-like templates on image description pages. --Carnildo (talk) 04:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

OrphanBot and images tagged as unverified permission

Looks like OrphanBot is having some trouble "parsing" images that are tagged as having a unexplained free license tag (unverified permission from 3. party given as source). The images are put into a "Images with unknown copyright status as of XXX", so I guess OrphanBot just look at the category and treat them as untagged images. So when it comes around to remove the images from articles it will also post a notice to the uploader saying the image has no copyright info, even if the person who tagged the image used the "correct" "no permission" template message. See for example User talk:GusF.

Just a FYI, not sure what the easiest fix is, setting up a entierly new cateogy for the bot to partoll, or make the bot recognize the "new" {{subst:npd}} tag. --Sherool (talk) 12:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there are several things going wrong there. The big one is that the bot should have noticed User:Lokal_Profil's message and not left its own notice -- but the MediaWiki API isn't reporting links to image description pages properly. Once that is fixed, I'll see about using a different message for "no permission" images. I don't think it's too urgent: the bot's been using its current message since at least August 31. --Carnildo (talk) 23:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

SBS Transit Service 3

That is a scan copy of the bus number copy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OrphanBot vandalizing Acid3

Please restore the Public Domain image that was deleted! It breaks the article. Also, get a clue before vandalizing Wikipedia. Unsigned :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rklz2 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Jenna Miscavige Hill.jpg

Your ImageTaggingBot is repeatedly tagging this image for deletion on the purported grounds of a lack of license information [34] [35], despite the fact that the image contains sufficient information to identify it as freely licensed, though no template is available for this particular case. Could you add this image as an exception to the bot's tagging? Thanks. John254 01:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The bot's quite correct in what it's doing. Copyleft is a concept, not a specific copyright license. Without details, we don't know, for example, if the photographer is expecting credit, if they're permitting commercial use, or if they're permitting derivative works. We can reasonably expect that they're permitting free distribution of unmodified copies, but even that's not certain. --Carnildo (talk) 02:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible bug in FairuseBot

Hi, I got a message from FairuseBot at my talk about File:1totoro.jpg. However I'm not the original uploader; I only supplied reduced-size version whereupon the original was deleted. However, you can see at the logs for that file that the original upload is still visible. Anyway, feel free to disregard if this isn't a bug. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

You're the only user listed in the upload history, so you're the person the bot notified. --Carnildo (talk) 10:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Mirpur, Pakistan

I have deleted a message placed on the article talk page from your fair use bot! It refers to the image File:100px-Pk-punj.PNG. The image has not been directly placed on the article by an editor, but is incorporated in this template

The image can only be removed from the page by deleting the template, which would cause more problems. However the template talk page has not been issued the same fair use rationale message. Its worth noting the template is also used on 46 other articles, which will have also received the bot message. Would sorting out the template rationale also cover the use of the image on the articles it is used on? Richard Harvey (talk) 10:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

If the image isn't free, then it shouldn't be used on so many pages. I can't see that the images add much to the template, so I've removed them. --Carnildo (talk) 20:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Back Home Again

Why did your bot tag an image of an album cover that is being used on a page dedicated specifically to that album? The automatic fair use rationale for album covers applies, and it's not used on any other page, so no additional rationale is required. CycloneGU (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that you've provided a rationale for the image's use in Back Home Again (album), but it's actually used in Back Home Again (Kenny Rogers album). --Carnildo (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Whoops...that clarifies it. The bot isn't clear on such a note there, but I'll make the correction as that was a clear oversight. Thanks for the heads up. =) CycloneGU (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Al Loomis on Tuxedo Park cover 83d40m p2croped.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:Al Loomis on Tuxedo Park cover 83d40m p2croped.JPG. 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. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 11:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the error, have made the corrections following your instructions -- hope that my corrections are adequate. The incorrect data had been carried from the first application of the image and was not altered when that changed. Thanks again. (Responded at my talk page as well.) ---- 83d40m (talk) 17:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You've solved the problems that FairuseBot pointed out, but under Wikipedia's rules for non-free content, the book cover is really only usable for illustrating an article on the book. There's already a free-licensed image for illustrating Alfred Lee Loomis, and since Tuxedo Park, New York still exists, the article would be better illustrated with modern free-licensed photographs of the place. --Carnildo (talk) 21:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks -- okay to leave it there until an article on the book is created and an image is located for Tuxedo Park ? I'd like to link to the book article from the other ones. ---- 83d40m (talk) 00:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Country Store.jpg

 Done Let me know if there are any more problems. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Double Gammas

I do not understand the issue with the Double Gamma image, nor do I wish to. If you can sort it out then fine. MartinSFSA (talk) 08:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Reversion on Jimbos Talk Page

Please do not revert additions to talkpages which are not vandalism. If you Abuse rollback again I will start a topical discussion at ANI. You were out of line, at best!   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 08:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I consider any edit that breaks my browser to be worth reverting. --Carnildo (talk) 09:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, You will do well to remember that the alteration was W3C complient and displays well in any non-poor Internet Browser, so keep your finger of the revert trigger in future.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 05:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Why you have deleted my image???

User:Kekkomereq4 (talk) 11:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Which image? --Carnildo (talk) 12:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The image from the Heart of Stone Tour, now I have reupload the image.

User:Kekkomereq4 (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

If you're referring to File:CherHOSlive-10.jpg, User:Feydey deleted it. --Carnildo (talk) 20:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Bot mischief

On article Andriy Melnyk, the bot marked the image depicting Andriy Melnyk himself for deletion: [36]. I've written the straightforward description of why the image is relevent on the image page: it depicts the subject of the article. Any human editor would presumably know this and would not tag the image. This bot seems to just be wasting editors' time, mine and many others judged by the talk page here. Should we be adding content or engaging in the equivalent of paperwork?Faustian (talk) 14:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

FairuseBot didn't mark the image for removal from Andriy Melnyk, BetacommandBot did, and the issue was resolved almost a year ago. --Carnildo (talk) 21:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the image of the leader of one of the two factions of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists on the relevant page. Why was it removed?Faustian (talk) 01:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Because it doesn't meet Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content: the image doesn't add anything to that page that can't be handled with text. --Carnildo (talk) 01:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

This is an opinion. The article devotes considerable space to two factions led by two different men and named after them. It seems logical that images of the two leaders should be included. Perhaps some sort of consensus should be sought prior to removal of the image.Faustian (talk) 04:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Image

I just got a message saying that the image NVTAlogo.png was going to be deleted because it was not used. However, it is clearly still in use on the page Northern Virginia Transportation Authority. Could you please check your bot for a programming error? Racepacket (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The bot is working just fine. You got a message about Image:NVTAlogo.gif, which is not in use. --Carnildo (talk) 21:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

File:MACEMusic.jpg

Please feel free to delete File:MACEMusic.jpg with your bot; a newer version of the image was uploaded some time ago. Thanks for the warning :) Andre666 (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

File:MahoningLibrarylogo2006.gif

File:MahoningLibrarylogo2006.gif was replaced with File:MahoningLibrarylogo2006.png. So you are free to delete it ASAP. Thanks for letting me know!Cssiitcic (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Samba logo.gif

Hiya. FairuseBot pegged the image as not in use, but it is: cf. the infobox at Samba Financial Group -- Mvuijlst (talk) 20:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The image at Samba Financial Group is File:Samba logo.png: the same logo, but in a different format. --Carnildo (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Sorry. I'll happily let it be deleted then. -- Mvuijlst (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Alec Douglas-Home

Good work there, Carnildo and OrphanBot! Deleting images of long dead British prime ministers that are all over the internet is a good thing because (mumble mumble) free content! Yeah, that's it! Good work all around! I'm so glad we have a bot that automatically deletes images and doesn't notify anybody of what it's doing. Keep up the good work! john k (talk) 04:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, deleting unsourced images is generally seen as a good thing around here. --Carnildo (talk) 04:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it's unsourced because it's fair use. There is certainly no requirement in fair use law that you have to know who the copyright holder is. john k (talk) 06:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

No, but there's a requirement in our policy. I strongly recommend you read it. --Carnildo (talk) 07:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, because our policy is completely absurd. If you're going to be the one zealously enforcing our stupid policy, then be prepared to get complaints about it on your talk page. john k (talk) 15:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Fairusebot

Can you please tell your bot to stop posting fairuse notices on case law pages I'm putting up: the latest is Talk:Phillip Collins Ltd v Davis‎. All the images I find from Wikimedia, and the cases all relate to the images I've posted. Wikidea 14:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Law pages are subject to the same policies as the rest of the encyclopedia, and in the case of the page you reference, the image clearly fails non-free content criteria #8: the article is perfectly understandable without the image. --Carnildo (talk) 22:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank God...

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		It's so good to see FairuseBot back in full swing. Having a bot tag for the obvious non-compliances really saves the rest of us some trouble... J Milburn (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Fairuse bot appears to be in error

I just got a message about three images which I uploaded and placed in articles. Fairbot sent me a message stating that they would be deleted if they weren't being used in an article by next week. The problem is,... they're already being used in articles. I checked when I got the messages, they're still in the articles that I originally set them up in. In other words, they are being used in articles. I would like to know what the bot is referring to, bc I have no idea.

The pictures in question are File:Logo-bodog-fight.jpg, File:Mmaa logo.gif, and File:OpentoKUJI.GIF. In the fair use rationale, the article in question is clearly stated and linked, and they are all still active articles. The rationale has never been challenged, nor have the articles ever been subject to deletion for any reason. Unak78 talk) 12:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Never mind, apparently all of the pictures are being changed to PNG files. Feel free to delete. Unak78 (talk) 13:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Queensgate shopping centre

File:Qg logo.gif has been replaced by File:Qg logo.png; feel free to delete it. Chrisieboy (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Timepiece

Heehee...your bot snagged Timepiece.jpg and caught me on a screwup similar to Back Home Again from January 2 - that is, accidentally leaving off (Kenny Rogers album). Glad there's something making us correct our mistakes. LMAO

Mind, I secretly wish the bot was able to find the article it was intended for...but that's asking a lot from a bot. =)

Cheers. CycloneGU (talk) 00:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Page Length - Archive?

I just wanted to propose, since your page is quite large: how about creating an archive? I forgot to add a title earlier on my last post and, while doing so, found your page is 338 KB - that eats up some loading time for dialupers (which I thankfully am not, but yeah). CycloneGU (talk) 00:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll get around to it one of these years. --Carnildo (talk) 00:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. Would you like my assistance? I have seen other archives for users here, I can use a similar location for yours. If you wish, I can even post a notice to users at the top when beginning that part of the page is being archived so people don't lose their posts after I save it. *LOL*

I mean, it's the least I can do to help save some server load time. I've seen that come up in some discussions with other admins. on other talk pages, and with donations being necessary to support Wikipedia ATM, I don't see how it can hurt. =) CycloneGU (talk) 05:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

DuoDiscus1.jpg

Permission was e-mailed, but the image was nevertheless deleted. Please reinstate. JMcC (talk) 13:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

If the email confirming the image is under a free license was sent to OTRS, you'll have to wait until someone with OTRS access verifies it. --Carnildo (talk) 21:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

CD image

Hello Carnildo, I really don't see how this is in fact a copyright violation, and without meaning any disrespect, are you sure you're right? Hasn't someone just taken a picture of the CD (so even though they've included a justification, it surely wasn't necessary)? Also, doesn't it enhance readers' understanding of the case to see the album cover? Surely we're being a bit restrictive here.

What do you think about this: if I walked into HMV (or any music shop) and took a picture of Phil Collins CD and uploaded that, would it be copyright violation to use it in this article? What about if I took a picture of myself holding the CD, and trying to pull it away from someone else? Would that be a copyright violation? Serious question! (please reply on my page) Wikidea 13:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

What image are you talking about? --Carnildo (talk) 22:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm here about an image!

You removed an image from the Anoop Chandola page. This image has not only been approved and permission granted by the subject of the image, but the subject of the image sent a 'permission granted' email the the WIKI 'Permissions' address. So please leave well alone and stop being so bloody ridiculous. It's stuff like this which makes people give up on WIKI altogether. The constant need to 'prove' stuff and then, when you HAVE proved it, to be ignored and deleted anyway, is nothing less than idiotic. Please answer on my talk page if you feel so inclined. Yours furiously, Andrea AndreaUKA (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Stifle doesn't seem to think that the permission granted is adequate, and based on the email you pasted on File:AnoopChandola.jpg, I agree: "permission to use on Wikipedia" is not the same thing as "public domain". --Carnildo (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Really? Well, that's fine, you go ahead and delete it then. Of course if you're that concerned you could email Prof Chandola himself, but I expect it's too much bother. WIKIPEDIA has just lost my donations. Well done. AndreaUKA (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but "by-permission only" content hasn't been acceptable on Wikipedia for years now. --Carnildo (talk) 22:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Is that so? Well, do tell me how I can remedy that. Perhaps you'd like Prof Chandola to come and prostrate himself before the WIKI Powers that Be and beg for acceptance onto your hallowed pages? AndreaUKA (talk) 22:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want to change the policy, your best bet is to talk to either User:Jimbo Wales or the Wikimedia Foundation. --Carnildo (talk) 23:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, indeed I will. I'm well aware of who he is. And hopefully I'll get more sense out of him than I have out of you. You are not indispensable, you know. AndreaUKA (talk) 23:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you know there's been no movement on that OTRS ticket. Stifle (talk) 23:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Architects (Registration) Acts, 1931 to 1938

Please review your bot's activity on this page. I think you will see that there is full justification for this image under the UK Crown copyright licence. If you don't know about this licence, then I shall be happy to explain. Please kindly restore the image. Salisian (talk) 10:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Assuming you're referring to File:1931 Act ed.jpg, it looks to me like removing the image was the right thing to do, even if the bot did it for the wrong reason. The image clearly violates Wikipedia's criteria for non-free media, specifically point #8: there's nothing very significant about that image, and certainly nothing about it that couldn't be dealt with in the text of the article. --Carnildo (talk) 10:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no violation of any Wikipedia criterion. I have therefore restored the image and placed a copy of th copyright waiver on File:1931 Act ed.jpg page. Salisian (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

From one of the sentences you bolded: "Crown copyright is asserted to protect the Material against use in a misleading or derogatory manner". This means you can't, for example, take File:1931 Act ed.jpg and add the caption "This law blows goats". And again, from one of your bolded sentences: "the Material must be reproduced accurately" -- this forbids derivative works. It's not a free license. --Carnildo (talk) 00:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Time to return to objectivity and rationalism please, not self-justification: see comments on File:1931 Act ed.jpg. Salisian (talk) 11:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Objectivity and rationalism are probably a good idea: licenses that forbid derivative works have been unacceptable on Wikipedia since May 2005. Personal attacks have been unacceptable for even longer. --Carnildo (talk) 12:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The image is not a derivative work. Salisian (talk) 12:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I never said it was. I said the license forbids the creation of derivative works, and Wikipedia policy does not accept content under such a license except under certain restrictive rules. --Carnildo (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

No, the licence only prevents misleading and derogatory treatment, which, owing to your helpful suggestion made elsewhere, I have raised with User:Jimbo Wales. Salisian (talk) 19:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Paul von Hintze

I thought the Douglas-Home thing was stupid, but this is much stupider. File:Hintze.jpg is almost certainly in the public domain. It is probable that it was created before the end of World War I, given the fact that he's wearing his uniform. That would put it as being created before 1923, and thus in the common domain. Even if it was somehow published after 1923, it's likely that it was published without a copyright notice, and is thus in the public domain. Even if it was originally published after 1923 with a copyright notice, the chances that whoever copyrighted it renewed the copyright are minuscule. There's about a 99% chance that this image is in the public domain, but we're insisting on deleting it because of that 1% chance that it is not. This is completely ridiculous. john k (talk) 17:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Assyrian Church of the East Image

What was the reason for the deletion of the Assyrian Church of the East image from the Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac People page? Malik Danno (talk) 17:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If you're referring to File:Assyrian Church of the East Symbol.JPG, it was removed because there was no explanation of why it meets Wikipedia's non-free content policy. Removing it was the right thing to do, since it can't meet policy when used in that article. --Carnildo (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

so how can i make it that i can use that picture, cause its vital for the page ... because it shows the emblems for all three Assyrian Churches, but with this it only shows 2 now. Malik Danno (talk) 00:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You can't, and the other two should be removed as well. The page can convey information just as well by naming the churches as by showing their symbols. --Carnildo (talk) 01:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a no-brainer. Such images as this are clearly generated for promulgation purposes. Put it back up please, it is interesting. The house immediately next to my own was built by Mar Vernon Ulric Herford, Archbishop of Mercia in the Syro-Chaldean Church whose mission was the ecumenical goal of combining the Orthodox, Roman and Anglican Churches under his own apostolic care, being, as he was, in communion with each of these churches. Being also intensely interested in florid costume, particularly when meeting visitors off the train at the local railway station, it would not surprise me at all if this fantastic badge was of his creation. Salisian (talk) 11:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

So what? --Carnildo (talk) 12:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:What Do I Wish for Now.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:What Do I Wish for Now.jpg. 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. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 08:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Erm, the image fulfils the stated criteria. It is only used in one article, which is explicitly named and linked to, using Wikipedia's recommended template. - Green Tentacle (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing the plus-sign in the article title is causing problems. I'll look into it. --Carnildo (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I've solved this one. Many months ago, another editor moved the article, replacing the hyphen with a dash (why they bothered making this unnecessary and almost unnoticeable change is beyond me). When they moved the article, they failed to update the image's fair use rationale - as well as the text in the article itself. I have now updated both the image's fair use rationale, the article itself and any incoming links. - Green Tentacle (talk) 17:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

That's not it. Since there's a redirect from the old title to the new one, the bot should have spotted it and updated the link rather than complaining about an inadequate rationale. --Carnildo (talk) 23:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the plot thickens. But kudos for making a bot that automatically corrects errors, rather than just shouting at users. Let me know if you manage to fix the bot's bug. - Green Tentacle (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

ImageRemovalBot

Hi! ImageRemovalBot had removed File:A. J. Higginbotham.jpg from the article Higginbotham's claiming that the image was deleted though it wasn't. I just wanted to bring this to your notice since I observe that you are the bot operator. Please rectify the same.-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 03:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops! I'm sorry! There could've been the chance that the image could have been deleted and then restored. Anyway, cheers-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 03:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's what happened. --Carnildo (talk) 04:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

DeLorean Motor Company logo on Ambigram page

Your bot deleted an image on the Ambigram page, which is the exact same image (DeLorean Motor Company logo.svg) that is used on the DeLorean Motor Company page. It's a good example on the Ambigram page because it is one of the most well-known ambigram logos ever. Why was it deleted and what do we do to not have it deleted again when it gets put back? Thanks. RoyLeban (talk) 06:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It was removed because there's no explanation as to why using it on the page meets Wikipedia's rules for non-free content. --Carnildo (talk) 07:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

No such explanation exists on the DeLorean Motor Company page either. Why is it not being removed there? It is true that other ambigram logos exist, but this one is particularly appropriate for the Ambigram page because it is probably the most famous ambigram logo. And, of course, any ambigram logo, will have the same non-free content issue. If it is ok on one page, why is it not ok on both pages? Should the bot notice this? RoyLeban (talk) 11:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Explanations are normally placed on image description pages. --Carnildo (talk) 12:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I saw the rationale and didn't realize it only applied to the single article. In all my time on Wikipedia, this is the first time I've ever dealt with a non-free image. I added the rationale and I'll restore the image. (feel free to remove/archive this section now) RoyLeban (talk) 20:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Image removed from Chitraban Film Studio

Hi. I'm not the author of the above article, but they've asked me why the image (Joymati5.jpg) was removed. I've had a quick look at the details of the image - I'm no expert but it appears there is no accurate copyright/free-use information for it. All well and good, except that the image has been present in another article (Joymati) since March 2007 with no (apparent) issues. I can't explain to the author of this article why it's ok in one article but not another, as I don't know myself ! :-) Any thoughts ? CultureDrone (talk) 09:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Neither the lack of adequate souce information nor the lack of an adequate fair-use rationale for Joymati is something FairuseBot can spot, so it only dealt with the problem it could see: the lack of a fair-use rationale for Chitraban Film Studio. --Carnildo (talk) 11:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

So, (in your opinion) does that sort of imply that the image (without the source information/fair-use rationale) may not be suitable for Joymati either ? CultureDrone (talk) 14:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Ahh - I see, the non free-use rationale requires a statement of why the image is used for each article. One thing that the instructions don't make clear - is the {{non-free use rationale}} template added to the article, or the image ? CultureDrone (talk) 14:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Rationales are added to the image. The main problem with File:Joymati5.jpg is that the uploader hasn't specified who the photographer or copyright holder is, so we can't know the copyright status. --Carnildo (talk) 22:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Nevada_counties.jpg

Okay, this is getting to be ridiculous. This image is clearly a public domain US government image. It is taken from exactly the same source as all the other images of counties from the federal government that we use in Wikipedia. Perhaps there is some defect in the exact way I've described the image, but deleting it is just completely absurd. I uploaded the image and it's obviously public domain. I'm not sure exactly what is being looked for here, but I am not going to make any effort to figure it out and do it, because this is obviously a public domain image. If it is deleted, I will undelete it, and will continue to undelete it until somebody else fixes whatever defect there is on the information page - this is an image which is obviously acceptable on Wikipedia, and if people want to be anal retentive idiots about it, I don't see why they shouldn't be the ones to fill out the anal retentive forms. The burden required for uploading images has reached a point of complete absurdity - Wikipedia is supposed to be the encyclopedia "anybody can edit," but it is obviously not true that it is an encyclopedia that anybody can upload image files to, even in cases like this where the image's public domain status is absolutely obvious to anybody who's not a fucking bot. Ga! john k (talk) 07:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

And this is my problem how? Neither I nor any of my bots have ever tagged that image. --Carnildo (talk) 07:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry - the Orphanbot warned me about it, so I thought it tagged it as well. That was a stupid mistake on my part. Sorry. john k (talk) 14:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

71.17.52.50 back

Any chance of a re-block on 71.17.52.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)?

Suki-pushing again, including trying to soapbox on the Long-term vandalism page. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. --Carnildo (talk) 02:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thx very much. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Title list

How about just the ones in that group (the last one you reverted) that are not standard English letters or numbers? (Aside from not using the list at all -- I know your opinion on that already.) Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 04:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Those should be fine. In the case-insensitive regex, the requirement for non-word characters between letters keeps the number of false positives down, and in the case-sensitive one, you don't need to worry about case-folding producing standard English letters. --Carnildo (talk) 05:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! NawlinWiki (talk) 13:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Cyrillic

Can you explain me that again?... Thanks. --Againme (talk) 10:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk pages

Would it be possible to adjust FairuseBot to write a note on article Talk pages when adding a notice of non-fair use images? Since I didn't watch every image for an article I am working on, I didn't notice that one of them had been notified in this way until the modification was done and it was taken down. Not a big deal-- it's easy to fix after the fact. But it would be helpful when the initial 7-day notice is given to make a note on the article Talk as well so that editors who don't watch images can deal with it immediately. JRP (talk) 23:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I try to keep the total number of messages the bot leaves down, so the bot makes a reasonable guess as to the most effective place to leave a notice: if an image has a problem in some articles but not others, the bot will leave a message on the talkpages of the articles (the editors of those articles are likely to know why the image should or shouldn't be there); if the image has a problem on every article it's used in, the bot notifies the uploader (the uploader is likely to know why he uploaded the image in the first place). --Carnildo (talk) 00:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah. That's more or less exactly what I was thinking. But, in this case, you might want to check if there was a bug. Image:WEYMOUTH.JPG was linked to from Weymouth, Massachusetts and Wessagusset Colony with only the latter needing repaired, but the message being left on the Image talk rather than the colony page Talk, which might have been better. (And that seems to be what you are saying above.) Anyway, not a big deal. I just wanted to bring it to your attention. JRP (talk) 02:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Queen of Swords

This image was from the same source as the image it replaced so I have used the same rationale that was previousley accepted.REVUpminster (talk) 19:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

How

How do you give information when you put a image on Wikipedia. Julianster (talk) 21:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christianster94 (talk • contribs)

If you're uploading the image, put the information in the "summary" section of the upload form. If you're adding information to an already-uploaded image, click the image or any link to it, click the "edit" tab, and add the information. --Carnildo (talk) 22:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Why did users delete the images that I created for Wikipedia?Julianster (talk) 01:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Which images? --Carnildo (talk) 02:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Why did ImageTabbingBot delete the images that had put on Wikipedia. If you ever talk to ImageTabbingBot, tell him to stop deleting my images. Another thing that I have to tell you, if you go on my talk page, you will know what I'm talking about. --Julianster (talk) 02:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.66.80.80 (talk)  

"From Flickr" isn't a source: many different people upload images to Flickr, and they don't all use the same license when they do. You need to say who the uploader is, and give a link to the image on Flickr. The images you've copied over where someone's managed to find the original on Flickr are ones where the uploader forbids doing that, which is why the images are being deleted. --Carnildo (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Where is a another website that I can upload images from? --Julianster (talk) 02:45 20 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christianster94 (talk • contribs)

There are very few of them. Wikipedia:Public domain image resources has a list of some, and meta:Free image resources has more, but in both cases, you need to be careful: the websites often contain a mix of acceptable and unacceptable images. --Carnildo (talk) 00:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Request

If you're responsible for the "FairUseBot" then please follow the advice at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_use_rationale_guideline:

Please consider, as an alternative to deletion, fixing the description page, if possible.

I don't think you appreciate the damage you are doing by scything through Wikipedia removing countless images from articles without applying any intelligence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.245.228 (talk) 05:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixing things would be nice, but there's only one of me, and tens of thousands of problematic images. If, after years of effort, people still haven't fixed things, there's not much I can do. --Carnildo (talk) 06:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, and the number of images isn't countless. FairuseBot has removed 19,377 images from articles. --Carnildo (talk) 06:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Bot reply

Image copyright problem with File:MaksimirStadium.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:MaksimirStadium.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright 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. 06:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea - I did not upload this. But a look at the image page shows that information is at http://www.worldstadiums.com/copyright.shtml. You must have not seen it. I have gone ahead and removed the tags. Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Spokane FAC pictures

Carnildo, there have been questions raised about the source of some of the pictures in the Spokane, Washington article, which will be a stumbling block to getting the article featured. Reviewers do not know if the uploader is the author of the work.

If you are Mark Wagner and the updloader of File:SpokaneFromPalisades 20070614.jpg and File:Spokane Riverfront Park 20061014.jpg, I would like you to clarify that on the media files to avoid confusion and to the reviewers over here. Thank you. Anon134 (talk) 22:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Fairuse bot deleted album cover which in fact met the criteria for fair use

This bot deleted the image I uploaded for the album cover of Horslips' album, The Táin. It in fact met the criteria for fair use. I understand the reasoning why bots like this are needed, but they need to be fixed rather than having them annoying Wiki contributers. TheLopper (talk) 23:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the image. The bot deleted it because it couldn't find a link between the article the fair-use rationale was for (The Táin, which is a redirect to Táin Bó Cúailnge) and the article the image was used in (The Táin (Horslips)) --Carnildo (talk) 00:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

:Ah, my mistake then, thanks very much for restoring it, good to see there are some good people behind the bots! TheLopper (talk) 15:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: File:Iskorenim.jpg

Hi, this poster is often used in Russian websites to illustrate Stalinist propaganda. The author died in 1942. It's pretty clear that there's no-one looking for possible copyright infringements regarding this 'piece of art'. Anyway, as such images definitely used to be in the public domain until the recent copyright law in Russia, would it also qualify for this template? --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 14:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Depends. Was it in the public domain in Russia on January 1, 1996? --Carnildo (talk) 22:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Bot tagging

I am sure this has come up before but the bot, at times, seems to palce uneeded messages, that are also generic, on pages. For specific example see File:Bonnie Tyler and Bespoke Peace Mala.jpg which I tagged {{di-no permission}} and also left a message for the admin on the images talk page. Your bot has come along and left this message on the users talk page along with two more identical message for other images. I have noticed the bot doing this in other cases as well even though the user has already been notified/warned. In this case one needs to read the image talk pages for information as well as the "In general, regarding your image uploads" message on the users talk page. I know the {{nobots}} can be used on a userpage, by the user, to opt out but that does not help with individual images. And you say "if you want the bot to ignore an image, you'll have to talk to me (User:Carnildo) and convince me it's a good idea." So here I am. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion about how the bot can identify "in general" messages? The bot can already identify other peoples' messages about specific images by looking for links to the image. --Carnildo (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not the deep into the coding of your bot so would not be able to give a specific coding suggestion as to how to read context of posts. I know when I come across a user whop has made many questionable image uploads I will customize my message to include them all but, as was the case with this user, when I saw the scope of images I did not do that and simply pointed them to look over all their image uploads with overall fixes. I suppose you may have some sort of code inserted that would 1> Look for user name 2> mention of looking at their uploads 3> mention of obtaining permission or the like and 4> a post made on the date of the image tag. I have seen this in other case where a custom message was posted and a bot re-posted a more generic one. This user stood out to me because I can foresee numerous generic tags being added when they don't really need to be. Maybe a simpler solution might be if a {{nobots}} like tag could be added to both the tagged image and to any custom message. So if images included a, say, <!-- custom nobots --> in their tag and <!-- custom nobots --> was included in the post the code for the bot could be told somehting like "if" image tag = "custom nobots" "and" userpage post also included "custom nobots" than "do not tag". (And perhaps add in that the date + time must be within the same time frame as the image was tagged as an additional qualifier. "custom nobots - date/time (UTC)") Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a lot of effort for little gain. --Carnildo (talk) 22:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I am "responding" to the bot postings below. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: File:Peace Mala Original Youth Team.jpg Bot notice

User already warned. Please see User talk:Alosel#In general, reguarding your image uploads, posted on December 31, 2008 asking the uploader to fix any issues with all of their image uploads. On January 1, 2009 the uploader asked what needed to be done and was replied to the same day. None of the problem images have be fixed so have been tagged. Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: File:Bonnie Tyler and Bespoke Peace Mala.jpg Bot notice

User already warned. Please see User talk:Alosel#In general, reguarding your image uploads, posted on December 31, 2008 asking the uploader to fix any issues with all of their image uploads. On January 1, 2009 the uploader asked what needed to be done and was replied to the same day. None of the problem images have be fixed so have been tagged. Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: File:Imransheikh.jpg Bot notice

User already warned. Please see User talk:Alosel#In general, reguarding your image uploads, posted on December 31, 2008 asking the uploader to fix any issues with all of their image uploads. On January 1, 2009 the uploader asked what needed to be done and was replied to the same day. None of the problem images have be fixed so have been tagged. Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: File:Pamevansat2006awards.jpg Bot notice

User already warned. Please see User talk:Alosel#In general, reguarding your image uploads, posted on December 31, 2008 asking the uploader to fix any issues with all of their image uploads. On January 1, 2009 the uploader asked what needed to be done and was replied to the same day. None of the problem images have be fixed so have been tagged. Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: File:Lamakhyimsardrrowanwilliams.PNG Bot notice

User already warned. Please see User talk:Alosel#In general, reguarding your image uploads, posted on December 31, 2008 asking the uploader to fix any issues with all of their image uploads. On January 1, 2009 the uploader asked what needed to be done and was replied to the same day. None of the problem images have be fixed so have been tagged. Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Stop

I have written permission to use the image kuk_sm.jpg and have forwarded to the permissions email address. Stop removing it from the page "Kuk Harrell". Thanks.kidfrost08 (talk) 14:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

FairuseBot Concerns

I found that FairuseBot had commented out Xaric screen shot in Console application and Internet Relay Chat. What appears to have happened is Cydebot changed the generic "software-screenshot" license template to "Non-free software screenshot". FairuseBot then commented out where Xaric screen shot had been used outside of Xaric. This image should have been tagged "Free screenshot|template=BSD", and I've since corrected it, but I'm concerned that this same situation may have happened elsewhere. If you have the means you may want to check the logs for any images that had their license template modified by Cydebot that were then removed from articles by FairuseBot. Tothwolf (talk) 11:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Website

Is there a website that I can download images about people.I look on the Meta Image Resources and couldn't find website about people that can upload on Wikipedia.Is there another website that would help me with my problem? Julianster. (talk) 17:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.66.75.116 (talk)

Wikipedia:Public domain image resources has a list of sites, but keep in mind that some of the sites are a mix of acceptable and unacceptable images. --Carnildo (talk) 01:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: File:Lamakhyimsartibetanroom.jpg Bot notice

User already warned. Please see User talk:Alosel#In general, reguarding your image uploads, posted on December 31, 2008 asking the uploader to fix any issues with all of their image uploads. On January 1, 2009 the uploader asked what needed to be done and was replied to the same day. None of the problem images have be fixed so have been tagged. Soundvisions1 (talk) 06:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If you want me to write a strong AI, why don't you just come out and say it? Parsing natural-language statements for meaning is not an easy task. --Carnildo (talk) 06:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Your response above did not show any willingness to make any attempt nor offer any alternatives to what I had suggested. If you want to create HAL feel free but be clear that is not what I am asking. 1 + 1 = 2 is a bit more logical captain, or "if" - "than" is what I suggested. Soundvisions1 (talk) 07:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to show you that it is not simply "Parsing natural-language statements for meaning" that are being questioned. Soundvisions1 (talk) 07:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: File:P&J-MJMM.jpg Bot notice

User already warned. Please see Image author problem with Image:P&J-MJMM.jpg, posted on 28 January 2009. The message starts: "Thanks for uploading Image:P&J-MJMM.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear."

Re: Sky Tate AfD

Hmm. You're right. It's not the first time that confusing UTC & PST have tripped me up. And probably a second reason why I should not attempt things like that right before I have to go to bed. :-( FWIW, your note was a far gentler one than I expected to receive. -- llywrch (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Ryulong

I see that someone suggested desysopping Ryulong and that another user closed the discussion. I also see that you seemed to suggest that the suggestion may have merit. Ryulong is an extremely aggressive administrator in blocking others, he is not a particularly good editor, and I think he misrepresents himself as Chinese or Japanese. I am not impressed with his performance as an administrator. In fact, I think WP would be slightly better without him.

On the other hand, AN or ANI is the proper format for ban and desysopping are usually discussed elsewhere (ArbCom?). Therefore, the closing of the discussion is technically correct but may be wikilawyering as AN is better for discussing restricting admins like him.

I do not wish to fight with him. I just wish WP were a better place.

Disclaimer: 2 years ago, he indefinitely blocked me because I made a comment about a user who is accused of making a legal threat. I was not defending the user but thought that the comment thought to be a legal threat should be clearly identified to clarify the discussion. Ryulong assumed that I was defending the user and therefore must be the user's sock. When I was finally unblocked months later, we saw the damage that Ryulong did. I created quite a few articles and made some good edits (rare information) while Ryulong has not been a productive mainspace editor. What we need is a professional Wikipedia, not a social site. In WP, we should write high quality material and act like a hotel or cruise line that offers the most polite and best service. That's how WP will earn a great reputation. Chergles (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Tense changes

Please see WP:ADL#Entry tense. LeadSongDog (talk) 02:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The verb tense for that particular entry is tricky: "is" implies the actual existance of a fire; "was" isn't really satisfactory either. --Carnildo (talk) 02:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Johnlemartirao images

Well, there's several that are clear (c) violations (I think I put all them in the 'possibly unfree images' category), the majority of them do not contain any metadata, and those that do have metadata look like they were taken by 4 or 5 different cameras. Given the variety of them, and considering that some uploads were clearly marked as "self" when they were (c) violations, I marked the others as "no source" for the author to provide proof of the "self" claim. Skier Dude (talk) 04:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Clarification - I double checked the tagged ones and in fact NONE of them had any metadata - and the appear to have been taken by 4 or 5 different cameras because of the focal length/focus/ resolution, etc. Sorry if I was a bit unclear in that above - my bad ;) Skier Dude (talk) 04:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. The first few I checked had a "self-created" look to them, which is why I asked. --Carnildo (talk) 05:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Image Resources

None of website are given the pictures that I want. Which resource do you often go get your images from. I'm getting a little confused with the resources.--Julianster (talk) 05:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.66.79.32 (talk)

I usually use a camera for taking pictures. Occasionally I ask someone else to take pictures for me. --Carnildo (talk) 21:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

My Encounters with Fairuse Bot & Desparate Need for Advice

Carnildo, thank you for the wonderful creation that is Fairuse Bot. It's the closest thing I've received to guidance in my venture to add some non-free fair use clips of well known songs to Wikipedia. Thanks to you I have now mastered the non-free use rationale tag! ... or have I? I have added a clip for every song of Hunky Dory, one of David Bowie's most critically acclaimed albums. And am waiting to see if they'll be torn down. Or if I've done a shoddy job. Or if my formatting is slightly off. The only guidance I've received has been not to bother as they will most certainly be torn down. But I have read up on copyright law (on Wikipedia and off of it) and think I am completely within Fair Use laws for music. Please, {{helpme}} I would appreciate it if you or someone you know could give me guidance or tell me to stop wasting my time trying to contribute. eldavojohn (talk) 02:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem with File:David Bowie - Andy Warhol.ogg is that you've provided the name of the article as an external link rather than an internal link, and so the bot can't see it. Without an internal link, you need to provide the exact name of the article the track is used in, because the bot can't follow redirects to find out where the link should be pointing. Other than that, the original rationale looks good. I don't see anything wrong with the other tracks I've checked. --Carnildo (talk) 03:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

External links look like this ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google this]) while internal links look like this ([[Google|this]]). The bot only follows the internal link. Also note that Andy Warhol (David Bowie song) is a redirect to Andy Warhol (song) and should also be fixed, though you might still have one more to fix that does not show up on the page as an internal link ([[Andy Warhol (David Bowie song)]]). This is because {{non-free use rationale}} automatically makes (Andy Warhol (David Bowie song)) an internal link (from the "Article=" parameter). To get an idea of what changes should be made, take a look at the changes I have already made for you. --Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 07:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Questions

Just wondering -- how many false positives would this generate? .*[HНΉĤĦȞʰʱḢḤḦḨḪНҢӇӉΗἨἩἪἫἬἭἮἯῊЋΗ-−ŧſⱧԋњһłƗ!].{4,13}[RŔŖŘȐȒƦʳʴʵʶṘṚṜṞЯ®ΡΡ₧ÞþΡρРрƤṔṖǷґЃم]?.* <moveonly|errmsg=titleblacklist-custom-pagemove>.
Also, is there some way to prevent moves to extremely long (and usually abusive) titles, such as here? Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 16:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Your suggested regex matches roughly two-thirds of all existing article titles. It's essentially "all article titles containing an "h", "s", or "!" followed by four or more characters.

It's quite possible to limit moves to long titles (a simple .{150,} <moveonly> will block all moves to titles of 150 characters or more). The problem with that is that Wikipedia has a number of valid articles with long titles, and I expect those get moved more often than average because the article creator didn't get it right the first time. It's probably better to wait for the abuse filter to become available, so that the more sophisticated match of "a pagemove from a short title to a much longer one" can be used instead. --Carnildo (talk) 21:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Really? I thought that the proposed regex would require an "R?" at the end. What am I getting wrong? Also, as to the long-titles one, I agree that the abuse filter would be a better solution. I hope it gets here faster than the prophet Elijah. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The question mark after the collection of "R"-like characters just makes those characters optional. --Carnildo (talk) 20:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I get it, I need to \ out the question mark. NawlinWiki (talk) 05:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ariana beer

Hello!

Your FairuseBot removed the logo of File:Ariana-logo.png from the article for Ariana (beer), saying on the file's history page that it is not compliant with Wikipedia:NFCC.

According to the copyright template, however, the use of the image in the article in question constitutes fair use (the file is a low-resolution image uploaded to the English Wikipedia and used exclusively in two articles only: the one for the brand itself as well as in the article for Heineken brands - the owner of Ariana beer). If you want i can add a Fair Use Rationale/Non-Free Use Rationale to the file page but it seems superfluous as it is a) contained in the namespace; b) would just be repeating verbatim the wording of the copyright template; and c) no other logo page that i have seen has one.

I will re-add it, since i think the bot has mistakenly removed it. If anything else is needed as far as legal issues please tell me and i will add the necessary info to the file page - please tell me if i am missing something and i will do my best to fix it.

looking forward to hearing from you soon - thanks! BigSteve (talk) 03:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The reason the bot removed the image is that the only link it could find was to Heineken brands -- there wasn't any indication the bot could understand that the image was suitable for use in Ariana (beer). The bot looks for either the exact name of each article the image is used in, or a link that it can follow to get to the article. --Carnildo (talk) 04:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply.

I am altering the header of the file page from "Logo of [[Heineken brands|Ariana beer]]." to "Logo of Ariana beer, a subsidiary of Heineken brands." will this be enough?

on a different note, how come the File:Ariana-logo.png#History of Image:Ariana-logo.gif section is different from the Revision history page? (I am still learning the ropes of image pages, so please bear with me!)

Thank you! BigSteve (talk) 14:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

That's good enough for me and the bot, although you might run into someone who insists that the rules require a {{non-free use rationale}} template for each use.

The difference in histories is because "History of Image:Ariana-logo.gif" section is the history of the image before it was converted from GIF format to PNG format. --Carnildo (talk) 23:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, i'll bung in a rationale just to be on the safe side - thank you again for your help and all the best for the future! BigSteve (talk) 14:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Francis De Smet

Hei Carnildo, Fair Use of the images seems evident as the producer made those movies.Karel leermans (talk) 15:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't make it fair use. See Wikipedia's rules for non-free content. --Carnildo (talk) 23:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Those images are needed to give an illustration of both movies. You cannot make the biography of this producer without giving those images which are necessary for understanding the biography. Karel leermans (talk) 16:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

If they're illustrating the movies, then stick them in the articles on the movies. Putting them in the producer's article violates Wikipedia's rules for non-free content. --Carnildo (talk) 21:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

PD Florida public records

Please reply here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Federicaswilson.jpg to the question I asked you; I'd like to make progress on the issue of PD Florida public records. Elvey (talk)

Why is Real Madrid Castilla's shield being removed?

Both Real Madrid C.F. and Real Madrid C articles have not have the logo delected, so I assume that the logo can be used. Is there a problem that Real Madrid Castilla can not use the logo? Raul17 (talk) 13:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the image File:Logo Real Madrid.svg only has a fair-use rationale for the use in Real Madrid C.F.. There's no rationale for the uses in Real Madrid C, Real Madrid Castilla or Primera liga de España, but FairuseBot is mistaking the Real Madrid C.F. rationale as being for Real Madrid C as well, and someone's busy edit-warring with the bot to keep the image in Primera liga de España. --Carnildo (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Hung Ta-Chen's Map.jpg

The source and creator of the images is a senior Official of the Government of China and the Government of China of the relevant period respectively. The historical extremely old Chinese Government publication maps like inter alia the File:Hung Ta-Chen's Map.jpg was created by Hung Ta-Chen a senior Chinese Government official , to the British Indian Consul at Kashgar in 1893 or the File:Postal Map of China ,1917.jpg which was published by the Government of China in 1917 and the source and creator of the images are the Government of China of the relevant period i.e. 1893 and 1917 and the maps prove that Aksai Chin is not disputed but is an inalienable part of Kashmir. Do not be so naïve as to, pretend that the source or creator of the image is allegedly untraceable and make it a lame excuse to delete the same just to suppress evidence. As for File:Hindutash in Kashmir.jpg, which is an extract of the map referred to in Article 9 of the Simla Convention between Great Britain, China , and Tibet, dated the 5th July 1914, the source or creator is the Government of U.K. of that time, and is intended to discredit, disprove and refute Fowler&fowler’s sweeping assertion that “ In all the maps (1878, 1909, and 1911) I have added to the page (except for that of W. H. Johnson, who later joined the service of the Maharaja of Kashmir), especially all the British maps from 1875 onwards, it the Karakorums that form the northern boundary and not the Kunlun mountains. So please stop asserting this outdated notion”. All the maps are reproduced in all “note worthy” books dealing with India’s border issue, including “Himalayan Frontiers” by Dorothy Woodman published inter alia by London Barrie and Rockliff The Cresset Press 1969. So prevent vested interests from deleting the said maps which nullify their stance that Aksai Chin is allegedly disputed and hence cannot tolerate its presence. The Chinese Government had way back in 1893 and 1917 unequivocally admitted that Aksai Chin is part of Kashmir. Hindutashravi (talk) 18:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Herald.jpg

I got blocked for nominating it and you are calling for speedied ! What is your say on this image [37] it's lab. doesn't have a mention here[38].User:Yousaf465

The image is credited to the National Nuclear Security Administration and doesn't have any copyright statement or other attribution, so it's likely to be in the public domain. --Carnildo (talk) 03:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Do we have any proof for that.User:Yousaf465

The credit to the NNSA indicates that it was almost certainly created by an employee (otherwise, the credit would be to the photographer or copyright holder), and the NNSA is a part of the government rather than a contractor. --Carnildo (talk) 07:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

From my search on NNSA's web page,I wouldn't find any mention of copyrights,on [39].User:Yousaf465

University of the City of Manila

Please remove the deleted images in this article. Thanks.Mametkumar (talk) 02:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Barnard 68‎

I think deleting a large section of an article with little justification IS vandalism. What would you call it? ciao Rotational (talk) 10:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd call it a content dispute. See Wikipedia:Vandalism#What is not vandalism. --Carnildo (talk) 10:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes - it's a content dispute involving vandalism. Get real. ciao Rotational (talk) 14:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I would like your help on an issue

I would like to hear your input on the issue of User Friendlyness regarding the Template, "Template:Di-no source" and similiar templates. I think it is time that the template be changed and it is my estimation by your comments at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_November_8#Template:Information_needed that you may have similiar opinions on the matter. I would also like to rediscuss the deletion of Template: Information needed as well, because it appears to me that the importance of its resubmission is now higher than ever, under the condition of rewording the original template and documentation.

The talk page is here: Template_talk:Di-no_source#Increased_User_Friendliness_is_required

Thank you for your time,

Spitfire19 (Talk) 00:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Deleted images from saw chain

Scratcher-2.JPG, Oregon10.JPG ‎and Scratcher-1.JPG ‎were removed from the article by your notoriously unpopular bot, please warn it off. I have followed the upload requirements to the letter, and I am awaiting verification of the pulic domain status of these images by OTRS. In the meantime, I've replaced the images. Please, if you're going to create bots, house-train them a bit better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nailgunner (talk • contribs) 18:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC) Nailgunner (talk) 19:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The bot's not doing anything wrong. --Carnildo (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

it's not doing anything useful. Better it did nothing. OTRS are in touch to verify copyright issues which is a far more useful approach.

User:Rotational edit warring

Hello. I noticed you've been involved recently with User:Rotational's MOS edits. I've opened another report on his edit warring after the past three days of edit warring. You can find the discussion if you're interested and add to it as you see fit: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Rotational reported by Rkitko (2) (Result: ). Thanks, Rkitko ^(talk) 14:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)