User talk:Carnildo

I'm on vacation until Sunday the 27th. If you're here about an image, try asking your question at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Archives: The beginning through April 22, 2005 April 22, 2005 to August 3, 2005 August 3, 2005 to November 4, 2005 November 5, 2005 to January 24, 2006 January 24, 2006 to February 15, 2006 February 15, 2006 to April 13, 2006 April 13, 2006 to June 30, 2006

Answers to common questions

Why did you delete my image?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Images

I made the image off of a screen capture, The Copyright should be alright to use, It was off of the Muppets Take Manhattan DVD. If you have any further questions feel free to ask all of the other Sesame Street images i found were off a a Sesame Street website that is no longer open so the copyright stats are in the air the images are just images that you can find using a simple search website. If the image of Gonzo the Great and the Chickens from the Muppets Take Manhattan is not found thats because i made the image sized it then uploaded it. If you would like permission from Henson for using that screen capture i will be happy to get it for you. I know the email and i have no problem getting written permission from them. User:Muppet Collector 13 August 06

Opposed to Censorship eh?

FYI certain DoD agencies do use a colour coded alert system for weather emergencies. I know because I saw the posters on the wall during a visit. Posting more details might cause a stink, but the information needs to get out because I suspect the weather alert came first. You need to give some leeway to people trying to get the word out.

Random thoughts on a new feature

Hi. First off, top work from the bot, it certainly saves a lot of time. However, there are still a lot of images that appear to be tagged correctly, but that are copyvios. They sit there for a week with the copyvio template, and then it falls to admin to orphan the image and then delete it - removing the links to the images can take a very long time, and the backlog at [{WP:CP]] is very hard to keep under control. Can you think of a relatively easy way of automating the orphaning? One thought would be to create a category into which images which admins are about to deleted could be placed for orphanbot to orphan. That may need an extra check by the bot to make sure it's genuine - maybe that it was placed there by a specified user. There may be other ways to automate the process. Any thoughts? Kcordina ^Talk 08:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

How about listing the images on a protected page? That way, only admins can nominate images for orphaning. Or you could go with the category idea, and not worry about abusive listings -- the bot keeps a log of every page it's removed an image from, so undoing removals is fairly easy. --Carnildo 20:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

A protected page sounds like a good idea. Personally, I would be happy with it being an open listing, but suspect more paranoid members of the community would focus on the potential for abuse, rather than the actual positives such a system would bring.

So, if we created a page like User_talk:Kcordina/Orphanbot_holding_pen OrphanBot could patrol the list and remove any links? I guess it would be helpful if it also indicated in the list when it had done so to show the image can be deleted. Kcordina ^Talk 08:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

OrphanBot can no more edit protected pages than any other non-admin can. What the bot could do is create a separate listing of images it's taken care of. --Carnildo 06:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

A seperate page seems entirely sensible and just as good as removing the list it gets its input from. Kcordina ^Talk 08:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Call off the bot

I provided a rationale for Image:Mark Falcoff.JPG, and the bot keeps reposting the message. There is no indication given of what specifically is wrong. Also, please take me off the notify list. --TJive 08:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

You've been added to the "do not notify" list. --Carnildo 18:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

That's just a stupid picture.

I made it. I wanted to put it on my userpage.

Dear Carnildo!

Your bot has removed about 12 pictures from the 'Budapest' page where I have been uploading to for a fairly long time. Allegedly, the reason was the lack of copyrights. I believe I have provided sufficient information as I always provided wikipedia.org with the source of the file and the creator of the file if it was possible. I would like to ask you, if possible, to restore the page to what it was like July, 2, 2006 (around 12:00 am).

Sincerely, Dome

Who are you and what images are you talking about? The ones I checked were pretty clear copyright violations, or had no source information whatsoever. --Carnildo 18:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Bounty?

Always such a pleasure to visit your talkpage. Anyway, didn't you have a bounty up for writing FAs that use only freely-licensed media? Jkelly 22:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I did. It expired on December 31, and I decided not to renew it. --Carnildo 18:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh well. Jkelly 22:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Image backlogs

Hello. Do you think it would be possible for OrphanBot to go around all of the image backlogs (no source, no tag, no fair use rationale) and remove all of the images from the categories that they are in? It would be much easier for admins to go around and quickly delete them from there, rather than having the go to the article and remove it there, which is just a waste of time when a bot can do it! I have also put up a notice on WP:BOTREQ#Bot requested for image backlogs; you might wish to comment on the matter. Thanks and regards, Iolakana|^T 13:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The bot usually does this. There are certain situations it can't handle, such as images in templates or some infoboxes, but it should be removing around 90% of images from articles. It doesn't deal with the no-rationale categories -- there are usually only a half-dozen images in each day's category, and I don't know if it would be appropriate for the bot to deal with untagged images -- 99% of those images were tagged by the bot in the first place. --Carnildo 18:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Images

I have recently loaded some images on. I have been todl that they should not be on there and i agree. Would it be possible for you to delete ALL my images and if you can can you let me know how? Vanessabu. Thanks.

References on Homeland Security Advisory System

I deleted the refrences because they were now defunct, and led to 404 pages, but you reverted. Is that how it should be? Just asking. Thursday Postal 15:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. It's basic academic honesty to let people know where the information came from, so citations of web pages should be kept even if the page itself is missing. Among other things, there's a good chance that the page can still be found at the Internet Archive, or for online news articles, in the paper's print archives. --Carnildo 18:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, alright. Thanks. Thursday Postal 17:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Ucrsorority.jpg misrepresented as GNU-licenced

The image is actually a publicity photo owed by the university, as are most of the other photos on the University of California, Riverside article. Some time ago I nominated these photos for deletion, but only this one was ever removed. User Insert-Belltower has since re-uploaded it. The origonal internet source of the image is located here: [1]--Amerique 22:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Orphanbot on images tagged by Bogdangiusca

Please stop running Orphanbot on images tagged by Bogdangiusca, he does not follow the proper procedure and doesn't notify the uploader, thus putting images to be deletion without any chance for it to be fixed. PPGMD 03:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

If he hasn't notified the uploader, then the bot should do it for him. --Carnildo 18:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Your bot doesn't seem to be doing it either. PPGMD 21:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

That's because the developers changed the format of the upload history recently, and I haven't had time to find the change and work around it. --Carnildo 00:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

So now images are being tagged, removed from articles and deleted without any notification. PPGMD 14:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Occasionally, yes, but that's always been the case. OrphanBot doesn't notify someone about more than one image a day, and doesn't notify if there's already a link to the image, under the assumption that that link is from someone else's notification.

Honestly, I'm not sure I want to fix notification. In the week since the upload history format changed, I've had fewer complaints than normal. --Carnildo 19:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice work

Nice work with OrphanBot. It seems to keep Wikipedia a lot "freer" - it wouldn't be good to be the "The Copyviolating Encylcopedia", but also it's just good practice to include details like original creator and source even for now-P.D. images (especially since these details actually determine whether the P.D. claim is any good!) and to give details like date and location when uploading self-taken photographs. The summary at the top of your talk page is excellent, I shall be directing people towards it in future. I also noticed that the "baby Hitler" photo that your bot got attacked with lacks any source information (so there's no way to verify if it really is 70 years p.m.a.) so I nsd'd it at Commons. :-)

What I wondered if you might consider is using OrphanBot to leave a note on article talk pages, before removing them from the article. Since this would notify those who have watchlisted the article before it is "damaged" (as people seem to call it), it might reduce the heat and surprise factors a little. I don't know how feasible this is given the way you operate but it might cut down the flak a little. TheGrappler 01:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

My concern is that it won't have a very good cost-benefit ratio. Adding a notice to the article talk page will take OrphanBot an additional two to three hours a day, and I suspect it will just lead to tens of thousands of article talk pages containing nothing but floods of image deletion notices, just like there are tens of thousands of user talk pages with nothing but deletion notices. --Carnildo 18:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Good points. I can understand the time issue. (As for talk page flooding - you could make a null edit to the page with a warning as the edit summary, I suppose, though that has obvious disadvantages.) I wonder if it's something you might want to trial just to see what kind of benefits it brings - if there is big increase in requests actually getting dealt with, that might make the costs worthwhile. TheGrappler 13:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Moved images from Ashdod Port topic

Hi. You've removed images from topic. The lisencing there probably was incorrect, since it was one of my first topics. I'll restore those images with actual licensing. Thank You. Shmuliko 05:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Bill of Rights

Thank you for reinforcing how much twaddle is made in Wikipedia every day, it was very frustrating trying to explain how much needs to be deleted rather than improved on. JRA WestyQld2 01:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

At least for article twaddle, there are procedures for dealing with it. I'm working on image uploads right now, and there are about a thousand "I found this picture on the web and thought it would look good in my article" uploads a day, and no easy way to deal with them. --Carnildo 18:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Oprah Winfrey

Carnildo, I wonder if you might look at a fair use image debate on this article. Some newbies refuse to accept that culling too many fair use images is a positive move in light of other articles being equally bad in this regard. Thanks for your time. Harro5 06:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

What is cellspacing?

I know it probably seems a very stupid question but there a few things I need help with. FIrstly, I need to make some templates for the project (WP:NOIDASCHOOLS) I am going to start soon but I have never tried making one myself. Since I want to make them myself, I just opened the editing option of one of the templates {{Big Brother project}} to see how its done. One of the things they have specified there is cellspacing and I have no idea what this is , atleast in the wikipedia jargon and I guess otherwise also. I hope you can help me with it.

Unitedroad 10:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long to reply. Cellspacing is an HTML property that indicates the distance between sections of a table -- basically, the thickness of the dividing lines. --Carnildo 18:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Ading copyright tags

Hey. Orphanbot recently added a tag to Image:Slikksteev.gif. I don't have a problem with that, I just was wondering if it's possible to change the tag attached to avoid it getting deleted. Normy132 11:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Assuming it's permissible to use the image on Wikipedia, you need to edit the image description page to provide the source of the image (who created it and who holds the copyright), and indicate what free license it's under (or if it's unlicensed, which is probably the case, it needs to meet the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use criteria). You also need to provide the correct copyright tag: Wikipedia:Image copyright tags has a list of tags in current use.

To edit the image description page of an image, click on the image and select "edit this page". You can then edit the page just like any other. Be sure to remove the {{untagged}} template when you're finished. --Carnildo 20:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Help with images

Carnildo, I am truly sorry I came on so harsh towards on my talkpage. Would you please help me with properly uploading and tagging images so they won't get deleted? For instance, a screenshot of Bart Sibrel that was wrongfully removed recently. Thank you. GeorgeC 19:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

pharaoh djer pic

yeah, so sorry about that. completely forgot. i just put the tag. HoneyBee 06:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a picture of my webpage. What do I need to do?

The Panzerschreck picture

"I don't believe this is an inartistic photograph"

No offense, but your way of thinking is a bit odd in my opinion. I don't know the picture's exact origins (I have told everything I know at its page), but the fact remains that the picture is in the public domain because the Finnish Copyright law of 2005 specifies that images not considered to be works of art become public domain 50 years after they were created, and the picture was taken in 1944. Kurt.

What does Finnish law consider to be a "work of art"? Under US law, that picture certainly qualifies as a "work of art": there's creative effort in choice of photographic angles and choice of subject, and if it's a posed photo rather than someone tagging along with a military unit, there's a choice of lighting and pose of the subjects. --Carnildo 22:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

"What does Finnish law consider to be a "work of art"?" See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing#Finland. Kurt.

Looks to me like it probably qualifies as a work of art, then. And it still doesn't have source. --Carnildo 03:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

"Looks to me like it probably qualifies as a work of art," Notice this. "According to the "(legally not binding) opinion" of the Finnish Copyright Council...". And you cannot prove that the picture was posed. Kurt.

So because I can't prove that the image is still copyrighted, it's in the public domain? That's not how things work around here. I've listed the image for deletion. --Carnildo 18:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

"it's in the public domain" Yes, according to Finnish laws. How can you tell if the picture was posed or such? You can't. Even if you could it would irrelevant, because the opinion of the Finnish Copyright Council is legally not binding. The person who sent the picture to me is Chinese and he said that he scanned it from some Chinese history book. Kurt.

pictures of the Salginatobel bridge

Hello, the pictures which I had uploaded were made by me. Please put them back there. I publish them under the GFDL. Regards, Matthai

Which pictures are these? --Carnildo 03:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

This is claude kagan, globotype I had a confustion getting my first picture for the article. the Original contrib image saved was : 15:54, 11 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Image:Globo2.jpg (David Mc Callum, deceased 1890 Bookjlet published in 1856, The Globotype Telegraph Template:1.2.5) I lost it trying to correct spelling of booklet and got the second version that did not have the stuff. I dont know how tomove that picture in place in lieu of the offendidng one. Thanks

Your bot seems to be mis-tagging. Pls see my talk page. Carfiend 20:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Your bot seems to be mis-tagging. Pls see my talk page. Carfiend 20:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The bot is working just fine. When you uploaded the image, you didn't include the {{GFDL}} tag, so the bot informed you of that fact. --Carnildo 21:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Python

Where/how did you learn Python? Please respond on my page, thank you. GangstaEB (sliding logs~dive logs) 21:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't say exactly how I learned it. When you know as many programming languages as I do (20+), picking up a new language is easy -- mostly a matter of finding a reference for the language's standard library, so you know how to get the language to do things more complex than simple math and logic. --Carnildo 19:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Orphaning request

Hi. I have just deleted a huge swath of images, which are listed here. Would you be able to set orphanbot to orphan them? Each is only used once, but there is a long list of them... Cheers. Kcordina ^Talk 13:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. Redlinked images are harder to work with than existing images, as "what links here" doesn't always give the same information as the "file links" section of an image description page. --Carnildo 19:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Karina_venezuela.jpg deleted

Why was it deleted? I took it legally from a site and added its copyright. The album has not being published in my country so I cannot scan it or get it :-( --JewBask 17:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Image

The image I uploaded gopalshankar98veena.jpg has been removed. I think I clarified that the image was from the personal collection of the artiste and can be used on wikipedia. Please replace it on the page.

Notification- email sent you

Please check your email. If there is someone else that should be consulted, please feel free to direct them to here as an email substitute. Thanks // FrankB 03:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

What would be the best image tag for

File:G-Unit.JPG

Is there any appropriate tag for the image I uploaded back in October. It is an established image for many other websites and I had obtained it from G-UnitWorld (website). If there's anything else I could do for this image? Thanks. LILVOKA 22:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't tell you the best tag without knowing the real source and copyright holder for the image. --Carnildo 18:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Slum Village - "Climax" Image

The following image

File:Slim village - climax video.jpg

, is self-made. I sourced it as a music promo screenshot yet it was still put up for deletion. This has occured numerous times with several other images that I've sourced, hence the reason why I decided to create this one myself. Please see to it that no more of my sourced images are put up for deletion. In the meantime, I'm replacing it back into the article which I made it for. Thank you, Majik43.

Matrix Schemes

Carnildo,

Could you take a look at the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrix_scheme POV debate. It appears that the mediation has gone nowhere, the mediator dissapeared, and the debate has deteriorated. You have played a part in this discussion before, perhaps you could lend your hand again.

Thanks,

Arzel 23:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

OrphanBot templates

Hello, Carnildo. I just edited User:OrphanBot/nosource and User:OrphanBot/norat to remove links from section headings, in accordance with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings)#Linking. I would also have edited User:OrphanBot/source, but that one's protected. I made these edits on the assumption that OrphanBot just inserts something like {{subst:User:OrphanBot/appropriatetemplate}} into talk pages, and doesn't actually need the section headings to be worded just right in order to find its way around later. Please let me know if I overstepped my bounds. —Bkell (talk) 14:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. The bot keeps its own record of who has been given what warnings about which images, so it doesn't rely on any particular wording of the templates. The protected template isn't currently in use. --Carnildo 18:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" -OrphanBot

Sorry, wiz, I know it's you. Could you please shut this bot off, because nobody knows how to source an article anymore. If not, could you show us HOW to source it? Thanks (the preceding was not meant to be a personal attack)! Tom Danson 17:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing an image is pretty simple: you just need to edit the image description page to indicate who the copyright holder is, and where you got the image from. The bot has nothing to do with sourcing articles. --Carnildo 18:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Aircraft safety card

In the aircraft safety card article, there is a new scanned picture of an actual Qantas card, with a "public domain" tag. Is the use of that image acceptable? AirOdyssey 02:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that the card is actually in the public domain, rather than being copyrighted by Quantas? --Carnildo 18:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

No. AirOdyssey 22:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

How about looking for one that is definitely in the public domain? The Federal Aviation Administration might have a reference card that's PD. Alternatively, you could find a regulation governing the contents of such a card, and have someone draw up a safety card for a fictional "Wiki Airlines". --Carnildo 18:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Logos

I seen that the OrphanBot tags logos, lacking source info, for deletion. However, when a image is tagged as {logo}, which is a fair use allowed on wiki, wouldn't it be taken from granted that the image originated from the organization to which it belongs (regardless whether it was found on the web or scanned from paper)? --Soman 10:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Which logos are these? OrphanBot shouldn't be tagging logos as unsourced. --Carnildo 18:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

In this case it was the Image:Pcperu logo.gif. --Soman 12:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

OrphanBot didn't tag that one. You'll have to as Fritz Saalfeld, who tagged it, why he thought that the source information was inadequate. --Carnildo 18:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, you deleted two Stephenie LaGrossap ictures, that were clearly labelled where they were sourced (cbs.com)

Which images are you referring to? --Carnildo 18:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Sir John A. MacDonald image

It appears that your bot, is prepaing to delete Image:Johnamacdonald1870.jpg because there is no source information? I would appreciate it, if you would follow normal practice, and have left me a message at that time, rather than simply tagging the image, where few would notice it.

I must confess I'm not clear, nor have I found information, on how one is supposed to source an image. Given that that the photograph is clearly well over 100 years old, and obviously outside of copyright, I marked it as such originally, and thought that would suffice. Can you point me towards information on how source data should be presented, and I will gladly do so? Nfitz 14:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The image was tagged as unsourced by Jkelly. If OrphanBot had done the tagging, you would have been notified as soon as it tagged the image. As is, the bot saw Jeff3000's comment, and figured that you had already been notified.

I'm not sure how that would work, given that Jeff3000 notified me after OrphanBot did it's stuff. Though it's relieving to know the bot does notifiy people - but perhaps it should automatically notify under these circumstances too.

I was wrong about why you didn't get the notification. What happened was User:Nsandwich, who was the most recent uploader for the image, was notified. --Carnildo 20:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Generally, an image needs information on who created it, when it was created, when it was published, and who holds the copyright. Images older than 100 years are not "clearly out of copyright": for older works, the term of copyright starts when the image is published, rather than when it was created. http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/training/Hirtle_Public_Domain.htm is a good overview of when images pass into the public domain in the United States. --Carnildo 19:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Images older than 100 years are very clearly out of copyright. Any Canadian photographs taken before 1949 are out of copyright in Canada, and under US law, Canadian photographs taken before 1946 would also be out of copyright in the USA. We are talking about a photo here that is approximately 125 years old, and would be obviously out of copyright.

Image:PingPongMyth.jpg

The image and the accompanying info really wasn't mine. All the info on the page was copied from the original image, which was Image:Pinpong1 vzoom.jpg. I didn't like the black border around that image, so I cropped it out in Photoshop, and re-uploaded it under a new filename, and just cut and pasted the copyright tag that was on the original. If there's a problem with it, you should address it to the person who up-loaded the original. Nightscream 17:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Swanson.jpg

The image is the same file that was previously there. The blank bars on the side of the photograph have been cropped out, that's all. The previous tag still applies. Al-Andalus 07:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

So does the {{no source}} tag. --Carnildo 18:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Dreams So Real Picture

You can delete it. I don't need it anyways. but its shown on a few websites. Dr. Pizza 13:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Cirroc LoftonA.jpg

===>It's a promophoto Orphanbot claims there is no copyright info, but I used Template:Promophoto. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 17:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Did you actually read the tag OrphanBot was using? The bot was claiming there was no source information, not no copyright information. Where did the image come from? --Carnildo 18:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

===>My apologies The file itself is simply a revision of an earlier file uploaded by another user. If you want to handle this one, I'd appreciate it, since I'm really ignorant; the only thing I know is I took out some whitespace. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 20:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Logos in Template:Danish parliamentary election, 2005

Hello, Carnildo. I'm coming here to ask your advice. I recently removed the logos from Template:Danish parliamentary election, 2005 (talk) because the Wikipedia fair-use policy says that fair-use images should be used in the main article namespace only, and explicitly says they should never be used in templates. However, three different users have reverted my changes, saying that the use of these logos in this template is acceptable. I don't want to do any more unilateral reverting, so I'd like your opinion on the matter. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 18:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You got it right. Non-free images are not permitted in templates. --Carnildo 19:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Radical Center Emblem.svg

I think if you look at the uploader comments, you will see that the person who uploaded it is the creator of the image, and he was clearly granting blanket rights. Then he seems to have gotten pissed off and stormed away; apparently he deliberately mucked the comments on his way out the door. I'm not sure it is of encyclopedic notability (the only legitimate use I could see was on his own user page, and he seems to have abandoned that) but the rights thing should be clear, he can't unlicense it. - Jmabel | Talk 21:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Backwards ordering causes waste

To quote User:OrphanBot:

2. OrphanBot removes images with certain tags from articles using them.

3. OrphanBot notifies the presumed uploader of the impending deletion.

This is backwards in multiple ways. It should (1) notify, (2) wait until the 7 days or whatever are up and the image has been deleted, then (3) remove the image from articles.

It's a waste of many people's time and resources to remove them from articles before it's certain the image is gone. Also at the moment I can't see a significant drawback to implementing the process I've described.

¦ Reisio 08:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It's also not how OrphanBot does things -- the numbers are just what the bot does, not the order it does them in. OrphanBot gives notice as soon as it tags the image, or as soon as it comes across it after someone else tags it. The image is removed from the article before deletion as a "last warning" to anyone watching the article, and so it doesn't become a redlink when it is deleted. And it's hardly a major waste of time: somewhere between 97% and 99% of all "no source" and "no license" images are deleted.

There's also one major drawback for removing images after they've been deleted: "What links here" is unreliable for deleted images. --Carnildo 03:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting removal after deletion, but not removing (tags) several days prior to the end of the period given to properly source an image. ¦ Reisio 04:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Chilavert

since this phto was deemed not to comply with fair use criteria Image:Chilavert_Reuters.jpg, I thought I would bring to your attention another photo I uploaded, which is similar:Image:Toldo AP.jpg I am not tagging the image myself, as I hope that it could be indeed fair use. -Atavi 09:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, images from news sources, and especially from news agencies such as Reuters and AP, are almost never fair use: they fail the "effect on the potential market" test. Since the news agencies are in the business of selling these images, if Wikipedia distributes the images for free, we're reducing the market for those images. Further, news images used in articles of current events also fail the "nature of the use" test: articles on current events are very similar to news reports, so Wikipedia's use would not be considered a transformative use. --Carnildo 17:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Immediate Deletion

Would it be possible to delete this file that OrphanBot tagged (on the 26th of July) before the 7 days after the template was added passes? I know I violated a copyright, and there is no need to wait a week before the file should be deleted. Thanks --ChairHead 17:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Bot is being kinda stupid

Hey, I'd like to point out a problem with the bot. Sometimes fairuse images cannot have sources such as tv screenshots (when I or someone else takes it). Its really a waste of time.

Automatic tagging seems like a bad idea for screenshots in general. How about bot spits its feed to a list allowing users to manualy check recent fair use images of this nature.

--Cat out 14:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

PS: You may want to upadate the "I'll willingly re-upload it for you if you can provide the source" at User talk:OrphanBot as now images can be undeleted. --Cat out 14:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

TV screenshots, like any other image, need source information: what part of what episode of what television show is it a screenshot of? Who took the screenshot, and when? As for manually checking, it's not exactly practical: roughly 400 screenshots are uploaded a day. --Carnildo 19:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Question about the bot

Can orpahn bot tag already orphan "fair use" images for deletion? I ask because I found several when I was tagging unsourced promo shots the other day.--Peta 14:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

While at it the bot can categorise all orphan images under the orphan image category or something. --Cat out 14:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It can't do that easily: OrphanBot works best when the majority of images in a category are ones it's looking for, and orphaned fair-use images are scattered pretty sparsely throughout the fair-use categories. User:Gmaxwell used to run a bot that tagged orphaned fair-use images, but it hasn't been running for almost two months now. --Carnildo 19:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Fritz Saalfeld have been running Fritzbot for a while now, it tags orphanded fair use images based on Special:Unusedimages, wich is not perfect since it won't catch images only used on userpages and such, but it still tracks down quite a few orphands. --Sherool (talk) 06:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Fraternity/Honor Society Symbols

How is it okay for the crest of Alpha Phi Alpha to have only "coatofarms" as their copyright information, yet the symbols of Phi Theta Kappa that I uploaded with the same exact tag is prohibited. Answer me that please! The bot has flagged the images I uploaded (Phi Theta Kappa Symbole), yet not those of Alpha Phi Alpha. Why? May I remove the bot's flags?

Image:PhiThetaKappaKey.jpg

Image:PhiThetaKappaSeal.jpg

Image:PhiThetaKappaCrest.jpg

Image:APAcrest color web sm.jpg

Regards, --Wscc05 14:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It's okay for them to only have the "coat of arms" tag because I haven't gotten around to objecting yet. There's a backlog of about four thousand images that use only the "coat of arms" tag, and since I get about one complaint for every ten images, I'm in no particular hurry. --Carnildo 17:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Nanking Massacre

Just thought I should let you know that some very stubborn people on the page have put the pictures back in that Orphanbot removed, even after I rved to its edit. So they will have to be removed again - not sure if you need to do that manually or something the second time. Cheers, John Smith's 18:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The bot's quite capable of running a slow-motion edit war. I've yet to find someone who can out-stubborn it. --Carnildo 19:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Image source

{{subst:http://mrs-dibny.livejournal.com%7CImage:Sue Dibny.jpg}} T-man, the wise 02:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC) The image is from a panel of Identity Crisis, a limited series comic book. Why did I got the bot message? what did I do wrong? I thought I choosed the right lisence--T-man, the wise 02:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Copyright tag

I keep trying to add a GFDL self made tag to Image:Male replace.PNG but I can’t seem to do it. Could you please do this for me. Thanks.

One other thing: I'm trying to make new male/female (or boy/girl) userboxes. I can't seem to get them to display properly on the userbox page. Do you know what needs to be done?

Userboxes: Template:User girl Template:User boy Miller 13:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

"No source" unreasonable

The image Image:FF5_trans_compare.png got tagged with "no source" by your bot. However, it is a video game screenshot and thus the source is obvious. I have added source information since then, but is there no way for it to check that there doesn't have to be a source, depending on its placement? Actually, now that I'm writing this, I realize that this is likely impossible. In any case, it isn't necessary to add "no source" to such images. Just something that I wanted to let you know in case it helps you any. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 16:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the source for video game screenshots is not obvious, except in certain rare cases such as shots of the title screen. Just from looking at that one, I wouldn't be able to tell more than that it was from a mid-90s computer game -- or maybe a GameBoy Color game. --Carnildo 03:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Nobody wants your bot killed anymore...

Micoolio101 (the leader) has left Wikipedia. M. Burmy has been blocked by an admin.

I'll check and see if any more popup, OK? Tom Danson 19:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

OrphanBot User Page

Hi, I noticed that OrphanBot has a statement that says

Administrators: if this bot is malfunctioning or causing harm, please block it.

I wanted to put this out there, but have you considered adding a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Emergency-bot-shutoff ?

If OrphanBot's statement is the same as the emergency bot shutoff button, have you considered adding your bot to the list of bots with emergency shutoff? Guroadrunner 06:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Issues with OrphanBot listed on Bots Talk Page

Also, you may want to look at Wikipedia_talk:Bots because there are some issues with the implementation of OrphanBot. Guroadrunner 06:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

FairuseBot

Your bot removed Image:LisaFVogue.jpg from three pages based on their being dispute. I have tried to add reasoning for the use on the image page, have entered into discussion showing that the cover is discussed and pertinate to each of the articles and there has never been an adminstrative decision made on this image. Why then has it been removed before the issue is resolved? I believe that the image meets the fairuse standard for these articles. To remove this lessens these articles, in my opinion. Thanks. Doc ♬ talk 10:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Same here, for Alessandra Mussolini, an excellent Fair Use rationale was provided at Image:Alessandra_Mussolini_Playboy_IT_Cover.jpg, that the bot ignored. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 12:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

In both cases, the image is still listed as fair-use-disputed. --Yamla 13:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Quite so. Unlike WP:PROD where you are allowed to just remove the tag, or WP:AFD, where there is a real time limit, and someone judges consensus, there doesn't seem to be any formal way of resolving this kind of dispute. The bot shouldn't just remove disputed images after a time, that way it is making a decision that the disputer is always right. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

My concern as well. There has been no resolution, several persons that I've heard from agree with it being fairuse, one person in particular still does not agree. I have no problem with accepting some sort of consensus, once that has been reached, but in this case it hasn't. Doc ♬ talk 21:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Add orfud tag

When removing images from pages because their fair-use status is disputed, could you also add the {{orfud}} tag to the image page? That would help a great deal, I think. If you respond to this, please do so on my talk page or leave a short note on my talk page indicating that you have responded here. Thanks. --Yamla 13:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll have FairuseBot do that starting the next time it runs. It used to be that Gmaxwell's Roomba would handle the tagging, so FairuseBot didn't need to. --Carnildo 03:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Help with Image:Ncurve2.gif

As I noted on my talk page, I'm not sure what the copyright is on this image. Before you delete the image, would you have the time to help me figure it out? Chris53516 13:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, if we can't figure out what the copyright is, it's no big deal. I can replicate the idea on my own. It would simply save time to do it this way. Chris53516 13:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey! I requested some help, do you mind? Before you go about deleting the graphic? I don't take well to being ignored. Chris53516 13:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Your bot is not working properly. The image I uploaded is NOT even 7 days old yet. I uploaded it Monday, and your bot removed the graphics already! What's the deal? And you won't help out, either! Give me a break! You should take responsibility for your edits! Chris53516 14:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Quote from the copyright template:

The individual who uploaded this work found it on an unconfirmed website. An experienced editor should help the uploader determine the status of this work, and help the uploader understand the process for picking the correct license in the future.

I'm asking for your help. I can't figure out if a public school is considered part of the government, and thus all that it does is open to the public or not. There is no tag that fits this graphic. It's from a report a school published on their webpage about student achievement. Why don't you help instead of just deleting it? Chris53516 14:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

If you want to actually respond to my requests, don't do it here. I'm not going to waste my time waiting for you to respond, so I'm taking you off of my watchlist. If you decide to finally respond, go to my talk page or better yet the page for the image. Chris53516 13:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long to respond; I've been quite busy this past week. To put it simply, it's not clear that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, so it's best if you make a free-license replacement. There's nothing special about public schools that makes their images freely-usable; it's only the United States Federal Government that makes all its images freely usable.

The purpose of the {{somewebsite}} template is as a placeholder while you ask for help. When the bot notified you about the image, it linked to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, which is the best place to ask for help: there are at least a dozen people watching that page. --Carnildo 04:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

{{untagged}}

Shouldn't this just redirect to {{no license}}, which actually lists the images for speedy deletion? ed g2s • talk 18:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe not, but it should only be used for the case when the license information is in a non-standard form. It should recommend {{no license}} when there is no license info at all, don't you think? ed g2s • talk 18:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The tag is applied almost exclusively by OrphanBot, and the bot can't tell the difference between license information in a non-standard format and no license information at all. If there's a completely empty image description page, OrphanBot uses the {{no info}} tag. --Carnildo 20:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

photos

I took the photo of Elaine Zanutto with my own camera; I own it ...what did I call it EZpic.jpg or some such...I can use it; I took the picture myself. pic of Dudley is mine, too. also on Roberta Wenocur article: I took her photo too. I can indeed use my own digital photos! What is your problem? MathStatWoman 21:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

More on these photos: I own these photos. If you delete them, you make Wikipedia less useful, incomplete, and exercise so much control that people laugh at Wikipedia's usefulness. MathStatWoman 21:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

We need to specify the copyright status of the photo that is put on Wikipedia so Wikipedia doesn't get sued for copyright infringement. If you own the photos, you should have specified what kind of copyright status they had when you uploaded the photos (i.e., that you own them and it's okay for Wikipedia to use it). Please read this article: Wikipedia:Copyrights. Furthermore, there is no need to be so angry about it. Assume good faith of other editors. Heck, I got this notice too. At least you know what the copyright status of your picture is--I have no idea. Chris53516 21:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use

I’m sick of this stupid f’ing bot! There is a fair use rationale on this image: Image:Phycobilisome structure.jpg! Why does the bot say there isn’t?

I have removed the tag now. Please ensure that it isn’t taggaed again. Thank YouMiller 21:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Bot unlinked image tagged "NoRightsReserved"

Your 'bot examined Image:Israel barrier zigzag.jpg, which is properly tagged with a {{NoRightsReserved}} tag (a valid tag according to Wikipedia:Image copyright tags), incorrectly tagged it as lacking copyright information, and then damaged three articles by altering links to the image. Please undo the damage. Thanks. --John Nagle 06:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

OrphanBot did not apply the {{no license}} tag to that image, 69.196.128.174 did, and I believe he was right to do so: permission to use an image on Wikipedia is almost the exact opposite of "no rights reserved".

As for the general case of images tagged with bot "no license" and a copyright tag, if someone doesn't believe that a given copyright tag is correct, it's common practice to add a {{no license}} tag and a statement of why the person doesn't feel the existing tag is correct, which was done in this case. Because of this, OrphanBot considers a tag of {{no license}} to be more authoritative than any copyright tag. --Carnildo 06:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Stop touching my images and read

Read the following dicussion with an admin about another image from the same source (Fars News Agency). ArmanJan 11:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

El C doesn't have a strong grasp of Wikipedia's fair-use policy. In general, just because the source website acknowleges the existance of fair use doesn't mean that any particular use of their material is fair use. --Carnildo 20:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:OldOS

Could you add this to orphanbot's recognised tags? I've been through OS map's copyright stuff with a toothpick and then phoned them up and asked them about expiry dates.Geni 14:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Carnildo 20:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Irish Meusel

I put in the URL for you. You have to do a search to find the image. Never been to spain 21:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I found the image, and I fixed up the image description page to include the proper source information. For images from the Library of Congress website, the important thing to include is the call number, which makes it possible to find the image no matter what changes they make to the site. --Carnildo 23:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Reverted NSD on Image:IMG_3006_crop.jpg

Greetings Carnildo, some friend named "Claire K." doesn't qualify as a source now does it? (→Netscott) 03:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

If you haven't already, please see these WP:ANI threads concerning this image. Thanks. (→Netscott) 04:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Rome-dot

I uploaded a new version of Image:Rome dot.png, highlighting Italy. OrphanBot then told me it had no source information. I have reverted to the previous version. But I originally saw that it was GFDL, and that I could modify it. So I did. What's happening? --Thelb⁴ 09:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The {{GFDL}} tag only specifies the copyright status, not the source. In general, GFDL images need sufficient source information that the GFDL status can be verified. In this case, the image was generated either by User:Lupin or his bot, so the correct tag would be {{GFDL-self}}, which provides both source and copyright status. --Carnildo 04:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Requesting Help On an Image "License"

Hello, I was actually hoping a Wiki admin would contact me about the Image:Hanseinstein.jpg I uploaded. I wasn't sure how to classify the image. Basically Hans Einstein was a UC Berekely professor that worked on Northern California water issues long before I was born. At some point in the 1950s, somebody took a photo of him working on one of the earliest models (an analog model) of the Bay estuary. The photograph ended up in the hands of the engineers working for the State of California at some point. While the photograph is now the property of the state and includes a caption on the back of who and what is on the photo, we still don't know *who* took the photo ... chances extremely are the photographer has since retired, but the photo was given to somebody else here who most certainly retired with the intent being to show other people that an Einstein worked on water related issues here.  :) I'm hoping that perhaps that since this photo has been passed down from engineer to engineer in a group that works on similar work, that it can be granted an acception even though the photographer is unknown. I've asked around and nobody knows who took the photo. MCalamari 17:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

If you can't find out who the photographer is, then the minimum you need to find out is if the image is copyrighted (if it's from the 1950s, there's a good chance that it isn't), and if it is, who owns the copyright to it. --Carnildo 04:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:BRFA

Hey, was your comment on BRFA approving my bot for running? I've misinterpretted comments on the page before, and just wanted to be sure. Regards, alphaChimp ^laudare 20:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Another OrphanBot request

Hey. Sorry to ask, but is OrphanBot the right tool for this job? Jkelly 21:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:No copyright holder

I noticed that OrphanBot added this template to Image:Taxi1.jpg. I have a question and a bug report.

Q. Why does it use this template when we already have {{subst:nsd}} which is equivalent?

B. "Unless this information is added to this page, the image will be deleted on (4 August 2006). Remove this tag when you provide the information." (4 August) is, in this case, the date the image was tagged. It should be 11 August, i.e. one week later.

Stifle (talk) 22:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I've seen a lot of confusion over Wikipedia's copyright policy. Some of it stems from the complexity of the existing {{no source}} and {{no license}} templates -- what, exactly, is {{no source}} asking for? -- so I'm trying out templates that are short, simple, and to the point. --Carnildo 23:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I like it a lot. If it works-out, I'd love to see this text replace {{no source}}'s. ×Meegs 03:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

So far so good. I would support this replacement. Stifle (talk) 00:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Bot

Your bot sent me a message claiming Image:ESA-members-map.png doesn't have licence info. This is the image page before the bots edits. May be a bug, as I'd say that's pretty clear licence info. Cheers, +Hexagon1 ^(t) 02:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I missed the bot is asking for the creator, not the licence. Wouldn't the users be listed at "file history"? +Hexagon1 ^(t) 02:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Russians.jpg

Some smart guy put a double license on the image, Stamps and Sovietpd. I have removed the Stamps license. The image is a PD not a fair use, please tell the orphanbot to stop removing it from the articles abakharev 05:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Prabhupada_stamp.jpg

Hi, Carnildo.

I see your bot deleted this image. I understand that this has to do with copyright concerns, and I understand why these are important.

I've reviewed the comments on the Administrators' Noticeboard about fair use of stamps.

In the article A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, our intention was to use the stamp not to provide a mere biographical decoration but to illustrate the fact that the subject of the article has in fact been honored by the Indian government.

The assertion that the government honored him needed verification (this came up on the article's Talk page), and the stamp visually provides it.

And so I believe that what we have here is fair use.

Accordingly, I have restored the image, and added copy to the article to give context, thereby providing further justification for fair use.

I hope this is in line with Wikipedia policy. If not, I'd be grateful if you'd get in touch with me.

Thanks very much.

Respectfully, O Govinda 05:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Archvile.PNG

OrphanBot's done it again. I simply uploaded an optimised version of the image.--Drat (Talk) 07:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't happen again. I've fixed OrphanBot to understand the British spelling of "optimized". :-) --Carnildo 08:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Catman Cohen photo and subsequent reinstatement

Att: Carnildo:

This is addressed to whomever happens to be removing the "Catman Cohen in silhouette" photo from this Wikipedia listing.

The source of the photo is as follows:

It was provided to Wikipedia by Keevay Music (BMI), along with the requisite source document at the time photo was uploaded originally. The photo is owned by Keevay Music (BMI), copyright 2005. The original photo was shot by cinematographer, Oliver Theess, residing in Los Angeles, acting as an independent contractor hired by Keevay Music.

{{No rights reserved}}

The very same silhouette image appears in Catman Cohen's one and only live performance video (shot by director William Phelps, acting as an independent contractor for Keevay Music) and the very same silhouette image has been provided to countless websites. The silhouette image is the only official photo of Catman Cohen and, having been placed all over the internet, it is de facto in the public domain now.

Hope this clarifies matters for you, thanks.

24.126.193.239 09:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

For your information.

OrphanBot (and FairuseBot) seem to be creating more trouble than they are worth. I have filed a complaint with Wikipedia administrators. Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#OrphanBot_too_restrictive.2C_stirring_up_trouble Guroadrunner 10:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Question about an image...

Hello, Carnildo. I just wanted to ask what copyright tag I should put on my image (Image:USofRS.JPG). I did put an "Unsure Which Copyright Tag to Choose" one, where it says I'd get help from someone to choose what tag I'd put, but so far, It's been two days, and all the messages I got concerning the image were from OrphanBot, stating that there's a problem with the image, since there's no copyright. Can you help me, if you're not to busy? Cheers! The Runescape Junkie 22:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The "unsure" tag is meant as a placeholder while you ask for help. There are too many images tagged with it for us to go around actively looking for them.

If the map were made the traditional way, by stitching together hundreds of shots of the minimap, the correct tag would be {{game-screenshot}}. I'm not sure what software Andrew uses for the official maps, but it's probably not the standard client. The best thing to do would be to tag it as {{fair use in|Runescape}}, then add an explanation as to why it meets the requirements at Wikipedia:Fair use criteria.

Are you sure you've got the boundaries correct, though? When I was making the first map of Falador, Edgeville, the Barbarian Village, and Drayor were considered part of Varrock, and I clearly recall the boundary of the Wilderness running straight east-west. It's been a while since I've played, though. --Carnildo 04:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You said:

When I was making the first map of Falador, Edgeville, the Barbarian Village, and Drayor were considered part of Varrock, and I clearly recall the boundary of the Wilderness running straight east-west. It's been a while since I've played, though.

I reply:

Well, I didn't want make boundaries how they should be, I wanted to make them how I'd make them if I was—err...president—of RS. But I'm not sure what you mean about the boundary of the Wilderness running straight east-west, though. I know you're busy, so thanks for giving me a more thorough answer than OrphanBot did. Cheers! The Runescape Junkie 17:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Brandonjaymclaren.jpg

I found this image on the IMDb. It was his actor photo.

Spaceship Earth image

"No reason to use a non-free image when a free one is available"

There is a reason I put it there, because I thought it was weird to have the same picture twice in one article, and it is perfectly fine to use one image per article from a television program. Those were my reasons. --blm07 05:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Abu badali's RFA

Hi, Carnildo. I know you're a busy editor, but, I'd like to say that I would be interested in hearing your input on my RFA. As I work mainly with fair use vigilance, I think you may have an insightful opinion on either I would make for an useful Admin. Feel free to express you opinion. I apreciate and respect your work on Wikipedia a lot and this would not change after an "oppose" from you. Thanks in advance, --Abu Badali 04:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:ValentinIvanov.jpg

FYI - I undeleted it and provided it with a fair use rationale. Please review if you wish. Thanks. - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You missed an important point in the rationale: why it's not possible to find or create a free-license replacement for the image. --Carnildo 06:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

About OrphanBot's deletion of the Pee Dee Cyclones logo

I thought sports logos were exempt, because it being a team logo IS a source. I think OrphanBot needs to be shut off for awhile so it can be fixed. Tom Danson 04:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It is sometimes, but not always, the case that the copyright holder for a logo can be determined simply from looking at the logo. OrphanBot can't tell one case from another, so it won't tag logos as unsourced itself, but at the same time, it assumes that any logo that's been tagged by someone else is one where the source isn't self-evident. --Carnildo 07:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Tell me more about this, I'm interested in how OrphanBot discerns things here. --Guroadrunner 05:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The bot's got two modes. In tagging mode, it checks image uploads, and based on what it finds, it tags the image as {{untagged}} (image description page with no templates on it), {{no license}} (image description page with only a deprecated license tag), {{no rationale}} (image has a tag requiring a fair-use rationale, but nothing that looks like it could be a rationale), or {{no source}} (empty image description page, or page with a tag requring a source, but nothing that could be considered a source).

In removal mode, it assumes that any {{no source}} or {{no license}} tag is correct. In certain cases, such as an image with both {{no source}} and {{PD-self}}, it lists the image for my review. --Carnildo 03:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

<< (image has a tag requiring a fair-use rationale, but nothing that looks like it could be a rationale) >>

Does it parse the image summary for a rationale, or does it only seek a "fair-use rationale" tag? I would have an issue with the latter, as Wikipedia's methods can catch people out. See the extra steps a user might be caught out with here: [2]. What are your thoughts on users possibly being caught out by this, and would you have any ideas for solutions? --Guroadrunner 11:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The bot checks the image description page for any of about a dozen keywords that would be part of a fair-use rationale. As a result, it accepts a lot of things that aren't valid rationales, and it hasn't rejected anything I would consider valid in several months. --Carnildo 06:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Not talking about all the vasted time users needs to go through to get the image back on page. - Time is money and Wiki ask for donations? My donation is that I uploaded my image that your system took off...

Message for you, sir

This was left on User:OrphanBot:

hi. i didnt put the picture of ascension on this site. but i saw it there yesterday. i graduated from ascension and attended a reunion there a few months ago. i must have 50 pictures of ascension that i took with my camera. so i will see if i can find one and replace the picture you removed. no big deal. joe 19:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

John Ralston Saul image

Hi,

your bot deleted the official image of Dr. John Ralston Saul the former Vice-Regal Consort of Canada on June 17 2006 at 5:19. It was his official portrait taken while he was in office and was (at the time) available free of charge to anyone wanting a copy either by telephone, mailing, or internet download on gg.ca (we had this same problem with his wife Adrienne Clarkson's image). It is essentially a publicity image of Saul publicizing the office of the vice-regal consort (really a fairly useless position). Its definately fair use, far more so than the book-cover currently on the page (although I think that is a much cooler image). Dowew 05:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

just realized it should be tagged {{Canada-politician-photo}}

Apple II images needing deletion

There are several Apple II-related images that need deletion. They all lack proper source information, and they are all tagged as orphans, as they have been replaced by me with free-use alternatives from the Wikimedia Commons.

I am not an admin, So I cannot delete the images myself, otherwise I would.

The ones needing deletion are: Image:Apple IIe middle age.jpg, Image:AppleIIc2.jpg, Image:Apple IIc.jpg, Image:Apple IIGS.jpg, Image:The Apple II.jpg.\

If they haven't got an orphan tag on them, then its because someone already removed it because there are on-going edit wars.

— Wackymacs 08:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Carnildo is not an admin.... RN 17:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh I thought they were, sorry. — Wackymacs 20:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

mandur

why did u delete the picture of Ajmer Mandur from his wiki site? Your bot deleted him. he is a Canadian politician and the image u deleted is used all acorss the internet as his headshot. Please do not delete any more politicans headshots thanks.Ace ventura 21:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The bot removed it because there is no information on where the image is from, and no evidence that the claim of GFDL is correct. --Carnildo 03:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I know you get this a lot

Hi Carnildo, this is about Image:Peelmap-a.png. I think we can safely claim PD for this image, as it was included in the League of Nations document C.495.M.336.1937.VI. (Geneva. November 30 1937) In case you need more details, it's an important image of Palestine Mandate 1937 partition plan. I thought that Crown will give us an additional protection but it seems I miscalulated. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I went ahead and made this claim (and restored the images commented out by the Bot). If you think this is inappropriate, please LMK. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

John Lennon Plaque image

Please, I posted the image [Image:Lennon_plaque.JPG] today, but i forgot put the attributes, and i received the bot message... Can you review that personally... i shotted that foto today. Thanks

I've done it for you. For future reference, you can change the information on the image description page by clicking on the image or any link to it, and selecting "edit this page". --Carnildo 03:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot ZorphDark ZorphDark 16:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Updated stats?

OrphanBot is still showing stats from June 1. I'd like to see just how much more that this bot has dished out in the 72 days since then. Hbdragon88 22:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll be updating the stats on September 1. --Carnildo 06:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Infocaster's images

You posted this on User talk:Infocaster. I found the probable source for Image:Biddutina.jpg - [3]. You may want to go over his other images with Google image search too. Kimchi.sg 09:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

If I ever find the time, I will. --Carnildo 06:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Brioschi image

Hi! I've uploaded an image of Francesco Brioschi and I've not specified the type of copyright so the OrphanBot notified me this problem. Now I don't exactly know the license on the image, but since it is a photo of a 19th century mathematician I suppose it is not protected by any copyright. I could reasonably insert that "the author has died more than 100 years ago" but I have not found the name of the author. Otherwise, what kind of license could I insert? Thanks! Bye! Eldar Featel 13:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

If the image was published before 1923, or published anywhere before 1909, then {{PD-US}} works. "Author died more than 100 years ago" is likely the case, but PD-US is easier to determine. --Carnildo 06:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Uploading images

I'm uploading a few images, but I still don't know exactly how to upload without problems.

Note, most images if not all are from sportslogos.net, so if I could get copyright info there I'd greatly appreciate it. Soxrock 23:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

For logos of sports teams, select "logo" from the dropdown menu and put the name of the team it's for and where you got the logo from in the summary box. --Carnildo 07:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

heh heh...

Oops, thanks! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 03:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Ebiet's photo

Hello. You say that this image has no source. But I have uploaded it from MalayWiki. So, what is the appropriate tag? In IndoWiki, if an image is uploaded from other Wikipedia, it's usually given {{dari|ms}} template for example (:ms is a code for MalayWiki). How about in EnglishWiki? --AFP 04:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

On the English Wikipedia, you need to track down where the other Wikipedia got it from, and put that on the image description page. --Carnildo 07:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

lost uFDEX.jpg

Hi,

With regards to uFDEX.jpg that you deleted, your copyright information is not clear and not EVERYBODY understands your tag system.

Anyhow if it's removed it's removed, not important at all.

But say a product like USB has a USB logo. The USB logo is posted on your website, but this does not mean it's given to the public because according to the USB regulations anybody using their logo on their product has to pay for it, no matter if it's so called "free to use" over the internet. So in fact USB can't release their logo to the public and this is the same for uFDEX too. The uFDEX logo is a registered trademark and not a public property, but this should not stop Wiki nor others to display this logo in digital form on a website or article as long as it's uploaded by it's original source.

So what to do?

In my opinion, there should be an option "I/we created the image and gives Wiki permission to display this on their website" and not realease this to the public.

Not possible, since we must allow our content to be used for both commercial and non-commercial purposes. Kimchi.sg 23:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Fairusebot

What happened to FairuseBot? It hasn't been running for a while. Kimchi.sg 23:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

FairuseBot generates a lot more traffic on my talkpage than OrphanBot, so I only run it when I think I'll have time to deal with it. --Carnildo 07:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding G.B. Jones

Dear Carnildo,

Regarding the image you have removed from G.B. Jones: this image is a single frame taken from the film The Yo-Yo Gang. It had been distributed by the filmmaker (G.B. Jones) and reproduced in various film festival catalogues, fanzines and magazines, and is currently available on-line on at least a couple of websites, the adresses of which can be provided upon request. It is a publicity photo used to promote the film The Yo-Yo Gang. As such, the rights of reproduction of this image can be understood as being much the same as the reproduction of an album cover. If you would be so kind as to reinstate this photo on the G.B. Jones page, that would be much appreciated.

TheEmissary 18:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Freezing rain.png

Hi,

File:Freezing rain.png

Your bot removed this image saying it is without source. However, the description is CLEARLY showing that the image is from Environment Canada. As a canadian goverment departement they allow reproduction (see their site). So could you put back this image!

Pierre cb 23:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

They may permit reproduction, but that is not the same thing as an any-purpose license. See User:Carnildo/Image FAQ section 1.2. --Carnildo 07:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Two pictures in the article about Josipa Lisac

Hello;

I would like to inquire your help with this page I made about Josipa Lisac, the Croatian singer. About a month ago, I've updated her biography and put 2 more pictures, which your program removed. One of them had the copyright information and the other one didn't, due to my own mistake. Since both of these pictures are used from the official site and with a permission, I would appreciate if you would help me tag them correctly, so they could be put on the page once again. Please send me a feedback. Thank you.

Aries 80 01:40, 16 August 2006

Since the images have been deleted, I can't do anything about it. You should ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions: there are a few administrators who watch that page who can undelete the images if needed. --Carnildo 07:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Promotion Picture Deleted From Article About .475 Wildey Magnum

Is it any way to get me back that picture? It was posted with out my knowledege that it diden't have a tag. The right tag should have been promotion material. Please, tell me that it's not gone forever. Because I cant find it again, ANYWHERE! And program that robot to give a warning one the main article page, and not only if you click the picture (wich a basically never did!).....Thankxxxx FreddyFred 00:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The image was deleted for not having source information. Without that, it's not possible to verify the copyright status, and the image can't be used on Wikipedia. The bot did notify the uploader, User:ChuckyDarko, and when it removed the image from the article, you still had three days to fix the problems with it before it was deleted. --Carnildo 07:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Two images in the article on Josipa Lisac

Regarding my post above, I have tried to fix the problem. I re-uploaded both pics together with all the necessery information and a tag. They are used with a permission from the official site. I would appreciate if you could check the pictures and let me know if this is all right now or whether some more information is necessary.

Aries 80 16:27, 16 August 2006

Image:Bsu.jpg

An edit left by OrphanBot [4] recently isn't very helpful. Can I suggest that any image uploaded with the {{Don't know}} tag should be marked for human eyes, rather than replying with a bot? In some cases, the answer is going to be, "we can't accept the image, sorry," but that's got to be a case-by-case call, since the user has specifically asked for our help. Telling the user, "you uploaded something using the "Don't know" tag isn't very helpful, since (presumably) they already know that. Perhaps if your bot brought such images to the attention of a larger audience that could help? -Harmil 14:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not practical to have every image checked individually: about a thousand "Don't know" images are uploaded every week, and many of them don't have source information. I'll work on a message telling the uploader where they can go for more information, but ultimately, it's up to the uploader to get the problems fixed. --Carnildo 08:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Bot notifying people

Hi, is the bot supposed notify people about every image they uploaded with problems? I was going through the backlog on Aug 2 of untagged images, and I see this User:Washi uploaded a whole bunch of those, but he got notified only regarding one image. Is that the way it was supposed to be? Renata 00:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I try not to have the bot flood people with messages: before I implemented the rate-limit, people were getting hit with 50+ messages a day. When it's in tagging mode, it'll notify someone no more than once in an hour, no matter how many images they've uploaded in that hour. When it's in removal mode, it'll notify someone no more than once a day, regardless of how many images from that person it's removing. All the messages it uses should tell the person to check any other images they've uploaded. --Carnildo 08:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

re: copyright material

Hey, I have a close relaitonship with the ICJP and I know I am allowed to use their logo (they have sent it to me in order to make my own letterhead ... what should I do to get their permission to you?

Thanks --Dahveed323 22:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC) David

Hi David. Permission for inclusion in Wikipedia is not useful because our goal is not to build this web site, but to create an encyclopedia of free content that is useable by anyone, anywhere. Nevertheless, we do make an exception for logos to be used in articles about their organizations. User:Sue Anne has tagged this image appropriately, so it will not be deleted. Take a look at her edit here for future reference. ×Meegs 11:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

jam & spoon

I indicated the source and the location of the image —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kyrie eleison (talk • contribs) 2006 August 18.

Image:Ac.jeffery.jpg

Hi, orphan bot sent me a message on this, but it was a pre-existing image that I shramk and re-uploaded. Can you help me better understand the intricacies of fair use? I wanted to speedy tag the thing myself, but it seems important to the article and is probably mis-tagged. Thanks  :) Dlohcierekim 15:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dlohcierekim. Fair use is an exception to U.S. copyright law that allows the republication of works without permission from their owner. It's defined by four factors that are explained in fair use, and is quite complicated. Wikipedia's policy for unfree content reflects both U.S. law and the project's goals as a free content encyclopedia. One problem with this particular image is that it probably does not meet our policy's first criterion (here). Notwithstanding, the reason that you received the message from orphanbot was because you did not provide fair use rationale for the image's use in its articles. If you have any specific questions, please ask them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. ×Meegs 11:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Once you're back

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Carnildo 3

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

woodlawn river image

hi, this image was sourced from wikimapia, but we were unsure how to license it at the time and didnt get back to adding the license tag, what should we do, (we is myself and a friend who created and update the st john's college, woodlawn article, the school we go to) thanks in advance for your help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Perkins88 (talk • contribs) 2006 August 20.

I assume that you are talking about Image:Wilson River -Woodlawn.JPG. That image was deleted because it did list any information about its copyright holder (who is not wikimapia, either). Do you know what government or corporation created this photo? Many (but not all) satellite photos are made by NASA and are in the public domain. Carnildo is on vacation right now, but we can help you with the issues involved if you leave a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. You can also reach me on my talk page. ×Meegs 10:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

this is my own image

Image:54dd.jpg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Highpriestess (talk • contribs) 2006 August 20.

Hello Highpriestess, Carnildo is on vacation. I see that this image's article was deleted after your request on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United faith ministries. I've deleted the image as well. If you'd like to talk about it further, please leave a message on my talk page or at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. ×Meegs 10:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Canyon Lakes Ranger District Photo Removed

Hello,

I had replaced the photo on this page and used all the proper tagging of the photo. It is a government photo - USDA Forest Service. If there was something else I needed to tag it with, I would like to know that for the future when working with Wikipedia.

Thank you.

Image:Atlanticpuffin.JPG -source now added, jimfbleak 12:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

== Anton Corbjin- how to tag? ==

Hi Carnildo,

I have shrunk and reloaded one of his images. Then I got a message from ophanbot. Do we attribute his images some way other than fairuse?

Thanks,  :) Dlohcierekim 12:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Possible mistagging by OrphanBot

OrphanBot recently went through a slew of Formula 1-related images, so I've been double-checking on the ones it has tagged.

I would like to discuss [5]

It is listed as a promotional image from a press kit from Autosport. OrphanBot didn't parse that information in the description, from what I can tell.

How would one go about adding copyright and fair-use information here? Let's discuss.

Additionally, I would like to get what you think regarding this fair-use magazine cover: [6]

Cordially, --Guroadrunner 11:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, probably what would be best would be to add a variant of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Promotional_images to both. What is your opinion? --Guroadrunner 12:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Zharta2

Get my image back!!! Please I own it you can't just remove it!!!!!!!! You know what This is not a bot it is a BUG a bot won't take YOUR images, only a bug can do that!!!!! Please I need that image you can't just take it!!!!!!