User talk:Carnildo

I'm taking a break. If it's not about a bug in OrphanBot, don't bother asking.

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

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

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.

{{Coat of arms}}

Hi - this template has been deleted by TfD, and User:MartinBotIII is currently going through all the uses, removing them (per the normal process). I was wondering, would it be possible for me to provide you with a list of the pages MartinBotIII has edited (mostly removing tags) so that, perhaps, O rphanBot might be able to do a run off the list and tag un-licensed images and notify users? It's not a huge problem if this can't be done, but saves me thinking up a way to do it with AWB (I don't really have enough time to write anotherC' bot (and get it approved!)). Thanks, Martinp23 21:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Certainly. One of the easiest things to change about OrphanBot is where it gets the list of images to work on from. --Carnildo 23:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks - I'm not sure how you'll need the list to be formatted, and I'll make one if you need it and will send it to you, but as a starting point, (and if you can run off this), the images are all of MartinBotIII (talk · contribs)'s last 3451 edits (as of now - I'll try not to run the bot again util I get a message from you about the plan :)). Thanks for your help with this - 'tis greatly appreciated. Martinp23 23:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Would it be possible to throw all those images into Category:Coat of arms images as well? We probably don't want to lose that info. If not they will probably get re-added slowly/manually. - cohesion 02:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I can work off MartinBotIII's edit history. I'll have to do some testing to make sure there have been no changes to MediaWiki in the past six months that have broken that functionality. --Carnildo 09:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Noimage.jpg

Orphanbot removed links to Image:Noimage.jpg in a multitude of articles. I've created my own version of the image and uploaded it as public domain. Is there a way to have the bot revert all the changes relative to this file? Thanks. --*Spark* 12:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Carnildo 09:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

I've uploaded a image to Wikipedia. But I don't know if it have or haven't have copyright. Thanks for you bot that tell me it have copyright, and deleted my image. Sorry for my upload, and thanks for your bot.

Mikelau97 10:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:20030513afp.jpg

Hi Carnildo. This was the first time I have uploaded an image, and I believe it meets all criteria under Wikipedia's rules for fair use. I have provided an expanded rationale on the image description page. If additional information is required, please state specific issues or questions. Regards - Cimm^[talk] 23:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Xbox vs Wii

Thank you for your response to my question, I have updated my question. Aaron 12:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

why is it so

Hell there i uploded many picture from MSN group Balouch Voice ,i do not know why those images are deleted here beacuse there was no copyright tag on it and that is Group is based on balouch commuinty .many users upload many images there so i dont knw from where they get .

Mir Balach Marri‎; 06:56 . . OrphanBot (Talk | contribs) (Removing image with no source information. Such images that are older than seven days may be deleted at any time.) ?

let me know what to do,bcoz that is group not even site and random user send picture on it.

Orphanbot/Warning

Orphanbot warned me of possible deletion of some of my images. Can you just delete all of those? I don't want them, besides, they're all not on any pages anyway. --RedPooka 16:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted the image linked from the warning I found on the user page. Martinp23 22:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Bot removal

In response to your comment on my talk page, I do not believe this bot is the answer to the unsourced image problem. I think it would be better to manually check and discriminate between these images. Unjustified removal of content hurts Wikipedia by decreasing its completeness. Mrcfjf 21:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

There are far too many images uploaded without sources for all of them to be checked manually. There are no more than a dozen or so admins actively involved in image work on a daily basis, and that would not be enough to handle the load. The alternative to OrphanBot is eliminating local uploads and shifting all media to Commons. Chick Bowen 22:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your reasoning. Just because admins are unable to deal with these images does not mean legitimate images need to be deleted by an out of control bot. The deletion of legitimate content has become the bane of Wikipedia. Mrcfjf 22:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I hate Orphanbot

I hate Orphanbot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thursdae (talk • contribs) 21:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Play by the rules and you won't come into contact with it then. The JPS^{talk to me} 00:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

i do, thanks --Thursdae 04:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)