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 July 20, 2007 to May 28, 2009

Stu Thomsen Image removal response from bot creator

I post this here incase you don't come by my talk page again and I think my response to you should be of note to others who use images of live persons to illustrate "their" pages (I know they are not "their" pages, but if you work on something long and hard enough possessive human nature kicks in even if you know better):

The image in Stu Thomsen was removed because, since the subject is still alive, it is reasonable to expect that a free-licensed image could be found or made. --Carnildo (talk) 08:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, if that be the case then simplify the licensing to simply reflect that if the subject is alive then only free license images made of the subject by you, the subject him/herself, or a third party is allowed. No more of the confusing "legalese" of "fair use" if instance of the application of "fair use" of a living person's image is in all practical purposes is nil (in this case the guy isn't famous outside of BMX circles). It will only serve to piss people off otherwise who think they met all the listed criteria only to be shot down, especially if no explanation is given forehand as to why it is removed. Oh, and also the image depicts the man as he was in 1984, 25 years ago, not today. Hunter2005 (talk) 09:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Why was the Stu Thomsen image removed on August 7?

I read the above and I still don't understand why the image Stu_Thomsen1_Color_headshot_BMXA_Jun84V9N4p39.jpg was removed!! It met all the criteria for fair use. I put down where I got it from, why the image is necessary and for what purpose and how an image of the subject is unavailable generally. Here was the fair use summery:

--- Fair use in Stu Thomsen---

• What proportion of the copyrighted work is used and to what degree does it compete with the copyright holder's usage?

1. It is cropped and the magazine has been out of print for over 25 years so no foreseable competition is expected.

• Is the image a logo, photograph, or box art for the main subject of the article?

1. Yes the photograph is of the main subject of the article

• Is the image being used as the primary means of visual identification of the subject or topic?

1. Yes, the photo identifies the subject of the article.

• What purpose does the image serve in the article?

1. To illustrate the person the topic is about.

• If applicable, has the resolution been reduced from the original? In the case of music samples, has the quality been reduced from the original?

1. It is a scanned *.jpg image, scanned on a 13 year old commercial consumer scanner. By its nature the photo resolution and quality has been reduced and it was scanned at a lower resolution scale than life size and reduced further to reduce file size.

I also indicated the source of the image (magazine) and copyright status form the selection box. I put down the additional explanation that while Stu Thomsen was famous in the BMX community he was totally unknown outside it so no images was available of him.

Can anyone give me a specific reason as to why this particular image was removed? If I understood the reason for the removal I could accept it but these things are yanked with no specific reason given. Yes, you provide a list of common reasons above for removal, but I don't know which one(s) apply in my case so I can avoid it in the future or better explain the justification. Its frustrating. bots maybe understandably convenient given the massive number of images uploaded everyday, but they are also arbitrary and frustrating since they don't give explanations and the reason for the removal maybe unjust.

Now Commons this

It might be a good idea if the ImageRemovalBot were to see if an image has been moved to the Commons on a different name. See these waste-of-time edits which I corrected thus.

This page is a totally ridiculous 451 kilobytes long. It may be helpful to move older discussion into an archive subpage. See Help:Archiving a talk page for guidance. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll look into it, but that sort of name change isn't easy for a bot to find after the fact. --Carnildo (talk) 04:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Are your messages in my Talk going to go away?

The messages you have alerting me about images I have added were taken into consideration and the specific changes were made. Will these messages be removed as I keep on thinking that you still want something more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bardya (talk • contribs) 17:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You can remove them if you want. They won't be automatically removed. --Carnildo (talk) 04:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Redirected Irony

I was looking at the deletion log for someone to speak to and here you are dealing with a redirect. Anyways, is this a necessary redirect: Dysautonomia (does not have to be familial) (Autonomic Nervous System Diseases)? Highly doubt it ever gets used. -WarthogDemon 01:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Probably deletable, but I wouldn't worry about it. --Carnildo (talk) 04:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Funny edits by User:OrphanBot

I just deleted File:Giggio.jpg since it is a duplicate and has no licensing info. However, OrphanBot made some strange edits, which showed the following:

Removed from the following pages:

1. Day & Age Tour

--OrphanBot (talk) 05:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed from the following pages:

1. Day & Age Tour

--OrphanBot (talk) 05:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed from the following pages:

1. Day & Age Tour

--OrphanBot (talk) 05:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed from the following pages:

1. Day & Age Tour

--OrphanBot (talk) 05:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed from the following pages:

1. Day & Age Tour

--OrphanBot (talk) 05:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed from the following pages:

1. Day & Age Tour

--OrphanBot (talk) 05:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yet at no point was this image removed from the indicated page. I checked the history, and this was not vandalism (all 6 edits were indeed from the bot), so I have no idea what could have caused this. Just letting you know. -RunningOnBrains^{(talk page)} 02:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Probably the ampersand in the article name. I'll look into it. --Carnildo (talk) 04:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Request

Have you any plan for release your bot script? If you do this, I can use this for Bengali wiki. Thanks in advance.- Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 19:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

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. ImageTaggingBot's source code isn't online, but if you want it, I can provide it. --Carnildo (talk) 06:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for late response. Thank you for great bot script and I need ImageTaggingBot's, you can send me as email to jayantanth@gamil.com or any other else.- Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 12:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The source is available at User:ImageTaggingBot/tagbot.pl. It requires more customization than the other bots: you'll need to fill out the lists of what templates mean what (at the very least, the files "sourcereq.tags" and "nosource.tags"), and you'll need to modify the section that processes {{Information}} templates to handle any similar templates that your wiki is using. --Carnildo (talk) 22:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Centre William Rappard

This is becoming increasingly difficult to understand, and also time-consuming and somehow frustrating. I received the email from Brandon Weeks telling me that "the necessary modifications to our article(s)" have been made (it seems that the message refers both to the article "Centre William Rappard" and all the photos included herein. However the article continues to be invisible and showing the "Possible copyright infringement" notice (which being copyright holders is a bit nasty to read in). Furthermore, now I receive this new notice from OrphanBot about the rights of File:Cwr aerial 1926.jpg. We are the right holders of these material (text and images), and contributing authors of most of it. We followed the process suggested and granted the necessary permissions to publish it. Is there anything else we should do to consider this article published? --Lamerica (talk) 09:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Corralesx.jpg

After an FFD closed as keep and it was endorsed at DRV, deleting this was clearly out of process. Please restore it. Stifle (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

No. The discussion was about deleting it under WP:NFCC #2: respect for commercial use. I speedy-deleted it under CSD F7 and WP:IAR as a clearly replaceable fairuse image. I probably should have tagged it and waited the 48 hours called for by the CSD criteria, but some of the people who close that category of CSD are of the opinion that only images of living people meet the criteria, and I wanted to make sure the image was deleted. --Carnildo (talk) 21:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me second the request and suggest you consider bringing it to WP:ANI for review if you insist on leaving it deleted. Hobit (talk) 01:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

So you ignored one policy in order to enforce your interpretation of another? 72.196.196.187 (talk) 03:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The only policy I ignored was the 48-hour delay on speedy-deleting as CSD F7. If you can convince me that there is no reasonable expectation of getting a free-licensed replacement for the image, I'll undelete it. --Carnildo (talk) 06:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I've asked the closer of the DrV to review and figure out what to do here. Given that it just make it through an XfD and DrV I don't think speeding it (and out of process at that) is either called for or wise. Clearly a number of editors, including admins, felt there was no reasonable expectation of getting a free-licensed replacement and going off on your own in the face of that consensus, seems POINTY. I'd ask that you either A) restore, B) bring to ANI, or C) restore and send to IfD. Hobit (talk) 12:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't have to make any justification to you. Why? Because basically what you've done is (a) deleted an image before any serious discussion could take place and (b) done so in a manner such that only people who had been aware of the previous discussions would even notice that the image was missing. Then you put the burden of proof on people who want the image back. How exactly do newcomers to the conversation meaningfully contribute if they can't even see the image in question? 72.196.196.187 (talk) 02:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm re-DRVing. Stifle (talk) 12:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Hobit (talk) 13:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Carnildo. I stumbled upon this controversy because of a note left on Jimbo's talk page. I'm deliberately posting this message before viewing the image or any of the prior/ongoing discussions other than this one. Therefore, I don't yet know who was depicted (as the title isn't jumping out at me) or have an opinion on whether the image is appropriate for inclusion in the encyclopedia.

Now, I must state that your above response is quite troubling. While I don't doubt that you've acted in good faith with the intention of defending Wikipedia's legal integrity, this really isn't the correct way to go about it (even if your interpretation of copyright law is correct).

You state above that you deleted the image without tagging it and waiting 48 hours because you anticipated that the evaluating administrator might disagree with your assessment and decline to delete the image. My goodness, Carnildo, that's a reason not to speedily delete something! The idea behind speedy deletion is to avoid clogging the system with uncontroversial (among the vast majority of knowledgeable community members) cases, not to push through controversial deletions before anyone can stop them. If there is any reasonable expectation of substantial disagreement (apart from the opinion that a policy shouldn't exist) among members of the community in good standing, don't speedily delete, period. That's what WP:FFD is for. It's possible that an occasional emergency exception might arise, but this clearly was not such an instance.

Whether you realize it or not, you haven't merely bypassed the scrutiny of fellow administrators; you've disrespected the entire community, most of which is unable to view the image and formulate an opinion/argument regarding the deletion's merit or lack thereof (oversight vital to the project's operation). Worst of all, you've invoked WP:IAR (one of our most important policies) as license to ignore not merely rules, but fellow contributors (something that never serves to improve or maintain Wikipedia).

As I said, while I'm certain that you have Wikipedia's best interests at heart, no matter how this situation ends up (whether the image remains deleted or is restored), your decision to sidestep the standard process will have been far more detrimental to Wikipedia than it was helpful (as evidenced by the entirely foreseeable disruption that has resulted thus far). Please consider this now and in the future. Thank you. —David Levy 16:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I deleted it right away because I know that some of the administrators who deal with that category use a simple alive=replaceable/dead=irreplaceable criteria for evaluating things. --Carnildo (talk) 23:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Right, you were aware that there are varying interpretations of the policy and that the deletion therefore was not uncontroversial.

Have you sought to reword the policy to eliminate the perceived ambiguity? For the record, I share your interpretation, but I don't condone dismissing other users' good-faith interpretations out of hand (let alone bypassing another policy to avoid giving them the opportunity to even express their dissenting viewpoints). Can we please fix the process instead of sidestepping it? It seems rather obvious that the latter is not helpful overall. —David Levy 00:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Question

You run that bot ImageTaggingBot right? Well, he must be wrong. I put the copyright in this image: Image: The Lazarus Plot.jpg and the bot says i didn't. Could you fix your bot so it works better? XxTimberlakexx (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The bot is correct: you didn't provide a copyright tag. Additionally, you aren't the creator of the image. You may have scanned it in to a computer, but the creator is the person who designed the original cover, and copyright on the cover is probably held by the publisher. What you need to do is provide correct source information (at the very least, state who the publisher is) and add the {{Non-free book cover}} tag to the image. --Carnildo (talk) 23:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Whoops

Your bot caught my incomplete job - forgot to select "Album cover" from that dang dropdown box. I'll find the template and fix that. Cheers for your bot keeping me honest, even if it is somewhat annoying to have to go looking for the template. =) CycloneGU (talk) 04:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Bot problems

Carnildo, your bot is tagging image pages as having no copyright holder, when the copyright holder has in fact been added. It has done it to 10 or so of my images this morning. See its talk page. Could you stop it from running, please, until it's fixed? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Pretty impressive: seven people posted complaints on the bot's talkpage, and not one of them provided a diff showing the bot making a mistake. Only one of them managed to provide a link to a mistagged image.

Anyway, I found the problem: the format of the MediaWiki API response was changed last night. I've shut my bots down until I can work out a fix. --Carnildo (talk) 20:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks Carnildo, for correcting your bot. My edit on the talk page of your bot was a bit too aggressive, so this is my show of appreciation.Daanschr (talk) 07:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

How to create a bot

Excuse me, I was wondering how to create a bot, but I don't know how. Could you let me know how to create a bot? Veraladeramanera (talk) 16:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Image vs. File

Hi, Carnildo. I noticed that OrphanBot's messages to a user informing them of an uploaded file with no source refer specifically to "images". It stood out because in this particular case, the files were audio files, not images. Would it be worth considering genericizing the messages to "file" instead of "image"? Powers ^T 14:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

OrphanBot

Hi, is OrphanBot offline or diabled? If so, can you tell me for how long? Thanks. Ecosse99 (talk) 20:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

It's offline until I get around to fixing the bug the last MediaWiki update introduced, which should be sometime in the next week. --Carnildo (talk) 01:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

FairuseBot

Any reason it hasn't run since March? It's been missed. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I need to figure out how to handle moved images. The last time I checked, pages that transclude an image by a redirect don't show up in the "file links" list. --Carnildo (talk) 21:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia request for comment

Since you have in the past taken part in related discussions, this comes as a notification that the Centralized discussion page set up to decide on a comprehensive naming convention about Macedonia-related naming practices is now inviting comments on a number of competing proposals from the community. Please register your opinions on the RfC subpages 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Cwr_aerial_1926.jpg uploaded again

This photo was uploaded and then removed from Centre William Rappard on 10 June 2009. After that I obtained from ILO Historical Archives the permission to publish it in Wikipedia, as follows. The ILO Archives fully authorizes the WTO to use/reproduce this image for its inclusion in online (WTO website, Wikipedia, etc.) outputs. All photos must be attributed to the "ILO Historical Photo Archives". Then I uploaded it again to Wikimedia Commons "Cwr aerial 1926.jpg". Please do not delete it again.--Lamerica (talk) 08:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The authorisation reads: 'The ILO Archives fully authorizes the WTO to use/reproduce the photos sent [including this image] for its inclusion in online (WTO website, Wikipedia, etc.) outputs.' This includes print or online productions by Wikipedia readers and of course they are allowed to adapt it to their needs. The authorisation only requests that 'All photos must be attributed to the "ILO Historical Photo Archives."' Thank you, --Lamerica (talk) 07:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Quoting from my talk page "Ugh. I hate that sort of vague permission statement. Without further clarification, I'd interpret it as Wikipedia-only, no derivative works. It doesn't, for example, allow me to add a smiley face to the picture, print it out on a poster, and sell the poster. In any case, the GFDL tag you've put on File:Cwr aerial 1926.jpg is clearly incorrect. --Carnildo (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)"

I understand. Could you please be so kind to direct me as to what kind of permission statement would be acceptable for Wikipedia and which tag should I put on this file since GFDL is incorrect. Thanks very much for your assistance.--Lamerica (talk) 07:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Quoting from my takl page: "Ideally, the copyright holder (presumably the ILO Archives) would release the image under one of the standard licenses (saying something like "we agree to license this image under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike license"). Failing that, they should make a clear statement allowing the image to be used freely ("we permit anyone to use this image for any purpose, so long as it is attributed to the ILO Historical Photo Archive"). Right now, there's no suitable tag for the image: images that are licensed for Wikipedia only or where derivative works are prohibited get deleted. --Carnildo (talk) 08:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)"

Thank you, I will see what can be done and will get back to you.--Lamerica (talk) 12:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

'The ILO Archives agree to license this image under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike license. All photos must be attributed to the "ILO Historical Photo Archives."'--Lamerica (talk) 13:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Should I do anything else? --Lamerica (talk) 17:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Quoting from my talk page: "Looks good to me. Forward a copy of the email to permissions@wikimedia.org so we've got a permanent record and someone will update the image description page. --Carnildo (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)"

Thank you very much. I will add the file names just in case.--Lamerica (talk) 06:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Bot progress?

How is the progress coming along with your bots? I miss them! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

ImageRemovalBot is working its way through the backlog; I still need to find a suitable set of recent uploads to test ImageTaggingBot with. --Carnildo (talk) 22:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Is there any chance that ImageTaggingBot could scan older images too once its running again, not just new uploads? There seem to be quite a number of older images that have no source or license info but which slip through the cracks. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 23:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll run it against everything from June 15 on forward, but there are a number of issues (vandalism, bad templates, etc.) with running it on older uploads. --Carnildo (talk) 00:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. That makes sense. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 00:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Would checking the page history to see if anyone other than the uploader has edited a page help with the vandalism problem? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

That would take care of the vandalism problem, but there are others. For example, there are several thousand images that wrap their source information in a navbox, rendering it invisible to the bot. I don't know how many similar situations there are, but it's enough that simply having the bot work its way through the upload log would cause widespread havoc. --Carnildo (talk) 05:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Fairfield_Lacrosse.PNG

I have an email from the owner of this image that your BOT deleted. Can you please restore this and I can send in the email granting me permission to post?Stagophile (talk) 22:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Forward the email with a note that the image needs to be restored to permissions@wikimedia.org and somebody there should restore it. --Carnildo (talk) 01:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Armagnac.jpg

Your bot deleted this image despite the fact that I provided the following: From: richard.ferriere@free.fr Subject: Re: Armagnac 3-view Date: May 4, 2009 2:28:55 AM CDT (CA) To: wzuk1@shaw.ca

Hello,

You are free yo use and modify the drawing to illustrate your paper

Regards

Richard FERRIERE

---

Mail Original -----

De: "Bill Zuk" <wzuk1@shaw.ca> À: "richard ferriere" <richard.ferriere@free.fr> Envoyé: Dimanche 3 Mai 2009 12h27:47 GMT +01:00 Amsterdam / Berlin / Berne / Rome / Stockholm / Vienne Objet: Armagnac 3-view

Dear Richard

I have just written an article on the Sud-Est (SNCASE) SE-2010 Armagnac and wanted to add a 3-view. I located one of the 3-views on the Wings 2.12 website. Using this drawing as a basis, I made a composite drawing. Is it possible to get your approval to use the original drawing on the website for the composite drawing?

Here are the two (illustrations omitted): Original:

My composite:

Bill ... in my other life, a meek and mild librarian... Zuk

FWiW, Now what? this is quite distressing after all the work that went into researching and illustrating a quite obscure subject... Bzuk (talk) 16:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC).

The image was deleted by User:Drilnoth, and it seems likely that he did so because the email only grants permission for you personally to use the image -- if someone else were to edit the article, they'd be in violation of the license. --Carnildo (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Advice

I would strongly advise you to change your bots editing things to file, as it changed over 6 months ago. 89.240.143.97 (talk) 18:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? --Carnildo (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Agris: International Information System for the Agricultural Sciences and Technology

Hello there! May I enquire why the snaoshot of the goodle map representing the Agris network centres has been deleted? Was information provided on the copyright not sufficient? Can it be restored? Your advice and guidance would eb much appreciated! Thanks, Isiaunia (talk) 08:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Google maps aren't permitted on Wikipedia: Google claims copyright to them, and doesn't release them under a free license. You could create a replacement for the map using one of the blank maps at Commons:Category:Blank maps of the world. --Carnildo (talk) 09:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, always learning something new! Have provisionally used another image although I'll certainly consider one of the blank maps you have suggested. Thanks for your response! Isiaunia (talk) 16:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Centrifugal Force

Carnildo, Before you make your final decision, can you please examine FyzixFighter's reversion of my last edit on centrifugal force. He has got a question to answer. There are a few editors here trying to get me blocked again using old stories from the time that I was previously blocked. There is an issue to be resolved on centrifugal force. I am not pushing unsourced material, despite allegations that I am. The matter needs to be fully investigated before any action is taken. All I can see here is a few editors who I have had nothing to do with, all sabre rattling to get a topic ban on me. And most of them haven't got a clue what the argument is about. They are being led on principally by FyzixFighter and Wolfkeeper who have been my most bitter opponents on the centrifugal force page.

What I'm effectively saying is 'can this matter be properly arbitrated?' I have been wanting administrator intervention for some time. The matter is all on record.

I should add that Wolfkeeper went to administrator Antandrus to alert him about this thread. Antandrus was the administrator who unblocked me the last time. If there was sufficient evidence to block me again, I am willing to look at that evidence and reply to it. But it seems to me that 'previous convictions' are now being stirred up in order to sway the administrator's. Is that a fair strategy? This matter can be resolved by reasoned discussion. And reasoned discussion does not entail the knee jerk reactions of a stream of uninvolved editors who openly admit that they neither know about the topic nor the issues in the conflict. The only thing that has nearly amounted to an edit war recently was the fact that over the last week or so, FyzixFighter reverted just about every single edit that I made, even when it had already been approved or modified by other editors. How can you block somebody for being the victim of that? You need to examine FyzixFighter's last reversion, and you need to check all the consensus issues. It is not fair that Wolfkeeper should have gone to Antandrus and shown him this thread so as to give Antandrus the immediate impression that I have been the sole cause of the problem, and that he therefore made a mistake in unblocking me. That's what you call calumny. Somebody has singled myself and Brews ohare out without justification, and now they are further singling me out and digging up my previous block record. You need to consider all these points before a decision is made. David Tombe (talk) 23:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like to request that you let User:CBM take a crack at this. He posted this comment in the AN/I thread earlier: "I will be away for a few days, but I would be willing to attempt to mediate the dispute when I return in the coming week. As I have said I am not involved or even familiar with the dispute at this point, although I am familiar with both WP policy and practice. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)"

And as I said in the AN/I thread, I don't believe blocking would be appropriate at all. Blocking is a last resort, and is done when there is actual disruption, not just prolonged arguments on an article's talk page. -- Ned Scott 06:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

(

Thank you so much =). Pzrmd (talk) 23:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

+1. No reason to be stupidly bureaucratic about this. Prodego ^talk 03:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

ImageRemovalBot

Hi Carnildo, I've just noticed the ImageRemovalBot stopped working last week. Could you advise whether it's going to be restarted, or whether I should manually remove red links from articles for the last weeek? PhilKnight (talk) 21:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out -- I made a typo while making a minor change to the bot's code, and I hadn't noticed that the bot stopped working. It's running now, and should clear the backlog in a day or so. --Carnildo (talk) 23:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to provide further input on desysop proposal

As someone who commented either for or against proposals here, I would like to invite you to comment further on the desysop process proposal and suggest amendments before I move the proposal into projectspace for wider scrutiny and a discussion on adoption. The other ideas proposed on the page were rejected, and if you are uninterested in commenting on the desysop proposal I understand of course. Thanks! → ROUX ₪ 04:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

ImageRemovalBot Malfunction on Columbus, Ohio

There was a malfunction with ImageRemovalBot, shown in this diff.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 00:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Odd. I thought I'd sorted out the Unicode bugs years ago. I've shut down the bot until I can figure out what's going on. --Carnildo (talk) 00:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Two examples I noticed are [1], [2]. Johnuniq (talk) 01:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the bug is fixed: something changed between versions 1.35 and 1.38 of the URI::Escape module that caused these problems, so I've rolled back to the older version. The bot is running again, but feel free to block it if it resumes making mistakes. --Carnildo (talk) 01:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

FairuseBot

Is FairuseBot not running any more? Last edit was logged as weeks ago. Is there any particular reason it has stopped? It was doing a great job... J Milburn (talk) 21:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Shortly after it last ran, the developers implemented image moving, but they didn't do a complete job of it: pages that show an image via a redirect don't show up in the "File Links" section of the image description page (or the corresponding API query), so FairuseBot would see them as orphaned. At the same time, the name on the page isn't the same as the name of the image, so none of my bots is able to remove such an image. Fixing this and properly testing the fix is going to take a significant amount of work: much of the bot code is based around the assumption that an image only has one name. --Carnildo (talk) 23:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Would it be possible to make the bot detect if an image redirect exists to the current image (I think that MediaWiki lists redirects to an image at the bottom of the image description page), and just skip any images which have redirects listed? Then you'd still be able to have your bots work with most images, just not the few renamed while that was possible. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 23:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

If you logged the images skipped in this way, I'd be happy to check them manually- that way, we'd get them all :). On a related note- we can move images? How do we do that? J Milburn (talk) 13:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Image moving was enabled for admins for a few weeks, but then disabled again because of some bugs (not entirely up-to-date on it, I wasn't an admin at that point), leaving the functionality only part way done (e.g., use of image redirects aren't detected) :/ Hopefully it will be fixed soon. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Template:Flphoto

Hello,

I would like to bring up an old subject (Template:Flphoto) that appears quite clear to me, but apparently gave some concern to you and a few other editors in 2007 who decided to delete this template/authorization. I tried to communicate with the lead editor, but he/she appears to be on sabbatical from Wikipedia. Since you appear to have made several contributions to the discussion I now come and hope you would entertain my request for reconsideration.

My concern is that Florida State law[3] clearly transfers title to images donated to the Archives with the Archives, not the donor. The Archives are then commanded by law to make the images available to the public, with the only restriction being attribution to the Archives. Would you, now having access to the authorizing law, feel free to reconsider your earlier position to broadly eliminate Archive images from Wikipedia? Archives policy[4] then comes from the authorizing statute. Thanks! --Sirberus (talk) 22:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleted photo Etyork.jpg

Your bot has deleted a photo for which a perfectly valid public domain rationale exists under the law of the State of Florida. This was done without advance warning or notice, contrary to Wiki protocols (the articles and related talk pages are on my "watch" list). Please restore the photo page and I will post the proper public domain rationale (see below). This photo was from the archives of the University of Florida, an agency of the State of Florida, and is subject to specific public domain rules under the laws of the state of Florida. Here is the public domain rationale, as posted by the University of Florida archivist on other photos related to the university:

"This work was created by a government unit of the state of Florida and is in the public domain under Florida law. Florida's Constitution and its statutes do not permit public records to be copyrighted unless the legislature specifically states they can be. This file is part of the "public record made or received in connection with the official business of any public body, officer, or employee of the state, or persons acting on their behalf, [which includes the work of] the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government and each agency or department created thereunder; counties, municipalities, and districts; and each constitutional officer, board, and commission, or entity created pursuant to [Florida] law or [its] Constitution" (Florida Constitution, § 24) such as a work made or received pursuant to law or ordinance or in connection with the transaction of official business by any state, county, district, or other unit of government created or established by law of the State of Florida (definition of public work at Fla. Stat. § 119.011(11)), and does not fall into any of the various categories of works for which the legislature has specifically permitted copyright to be claimed (see, e.g., "§ 24.105(10), Fla. Stat. (2003) [authorizing the Department of the Lottery to hold copyrights]; § 601.101, Fla. Stat. (2003) [permitting the Department of Citrus to hold legal title to copyrights]; § 1004.23, Fla. Stat. (2002) [authorizing universities to secure copyrights in certain works], § 119.084 [permitting agencies to hold copyright for data processing software the agencies have created]). It is consequently in the public domain according to court interpretation of the Florida Constitution, Article I, § 24(a) and Florida Statutes, § 119.01. See Microdecisions, Inc. v. Skinner, 889 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (Findlaw)"

The foregoing paragraph may or may not have been included on the image page that you deleted----we cannot tell because you deleted the image page and no history remains.

Thank you for your cooperation in resolving this matter. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The image was deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs), the bot simply removed it from the article afterwards. Also the PD rationale is flawed, per § 1004.23, Fla. Stat. (2002) mentioned above, state Universities are one of the exceptions where the the Florida legislature have specifically permitted copyright to be claimed. The deleted image was claimed to be released under the GFDL license by the way, not public domain, and it did not have a source beyond being from the university library so no way to tell if it was created by another state agency and simply stored in the library or created by the university itself. --Sherool (talk) 10:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Sherool, you're misreading the statutory language, which does not create the copyright automatically, but permits the university (or other relevant state agency "to secure" (i.e. take affirmative steps) copyrights in particular circumstances. Did you read the cited case? The case makers it clear that the presumption is in favor of no copyright in government documents. These photos were released by the university archivist for Pete's sake. I have to deal with my day job today, but I will return with a lengthier explanation this weekend. You are apparently trying to justify the photo removal after the fact, when no proper advance notice was posted on either of the relevant article or discussion pages.

BTW, what if any notices were posted regarding these issues? Where were the notices posted? Both of the article and associated discussion pages were on my watch list, and a simple review of their history indicates that no notices were ever posted. Is this consistent with Wiki protocols? What notice is required? This apparently high-handed behavior is very disheartening to those of us who are working hard to improve Wiki articles within our projects. Editors are forced to spend time trying to undo something that could have been easily cured instead of working to improve content. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the image temporarily (see User talk:Drilnoth#Deleted photo Etyork.jpg) and added a notice to it about its uncertain copyright status. I've also requested input at WP:MCQ. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, sir. I have alerted my senior editors on WikiProject University of Florida to this issue. I have not checked, but I suspect that we will have a similar problem with other photos that have been released by the university archivist. I would like to see if we can't get a global solution and properly document all of them to your satisfaction and then upload the whole kit and caboodle to WikiCommons. We really want to comply, but we ask for a fair hearing under the applicable state copyright law applicable in Florida. Hopefully, we can work this out in the next 7 days. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I was asked to view this discussion. Right now, the file is tagged as GFDL. If someone thinks this is true, we need proof. This can be proved either by a link to a website if possible, or an OTRS message stating the file is GFDL. If someone thinks the file is in the public domain, the license needs to be changed. The image was rightly tagged and deleted. With regards to notification, I notified the uploader.--Rockfang (talk) 16:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Rockfang. There may be more than one rationale. This seems to be the typical image copyright issue----the uploader is trying to comply with Wiki copyright protocols but doesn't know here to go for good advice and winds up doing the best he can on his own. FYI, I am not the uploader, just the primary editor who has been working on the related articles. I do not believe that the uploader is a frequent editor. Frankly, I am less concerned about this one crappy photo than I am in gettng the copyright rationales straight for the majority of the UF WikiProject photos. I suspect that many of the photos are subject to the same challenges, and I would hope to attain a near-global solution. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

We need to find out exactly where he got the image. Be it a website or he scanned the photo himself.--Rockfang (talk) 17:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Random rant

Your bot is crap and "it" and you clearly don't understand copyright. When photos and images are clearly posted with the correct copyright your bot deletes them. I will canvas others to have you banned from Wikipedia for vandalism until you cease and desist. I encourage others to review the irresponisble actions of this Wikimoron.

Jeff Collins —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.28.97.250 (talk) 00:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with what the bot does before complaining about it. The bot doesn't understand copyright because it doesn't need to: all it understands is "somebody deleted this image, so I need to remove it from articles". --Carnildo (talk) 00:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Brian Dickson.jpg

Could you explain why your bot keeps removing this image from court dress, even though the file itself continues to exist with a rationale attached to it, and has, in fact, never been deleted from the other article, Brian Dickson? fishhead64 (talk) 02:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It's got a fair-use rationale for the use in Brian Dickson. It doesn't have one for court dress, and adding one won't help: using it in that article would be a clear violation of the non-free content policies. --Carnildo (talk) 20:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you please explain further...

Could you please explain why you deleted File:Great Bear Lake a.png?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 23:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

It's an image description page without an image. It looks like the image was deleted in 2005 by User:TheCoffee (back when image deletion was permanent) for not having a source, the description page was restored in late 2007, and I deleted it a week later when OrphanBot informed me that it had found a description page without an image. --Carnildo (talk) 20:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for looking into this for me.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 20:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Need Guidance

Carnildo, Abu Torsam 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. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I am new to wikipedia, & wishes to learn new things. I just sawed up, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indore&oldid=313476599 . I am currently having watch on this page, your Bot, ImageRemovalBot did some edits with Pictures there. & i personally feel that the edits were right. I have got some confusions when i visit up several articles, in case of Pictures , weather they are copyrighted &/or Irrelevant. & so I am confused about their Editing. I just wish to know is there any technique by which i can place your Bot on pages which i beleive have got Suspicious images(COPYRIGHTED &/or IRRELEVANT), or put that pages in Check list of your Bot, so that whatever is true(Images) can be checked by your Bot, & edited to its best.Please Assist me. ( Abu Torsam 19:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)).

Request for Participation in Wikipedia Research

Carnildo,

Your Request for Adminship (RfA) process was reviewed and studied by our research team at Carnegie Mellon University early in our project to gain insights into the process. We reviewed what voters discussed about your case, and what qualifications you brought to the table as a candidate. In total 50 cases were personally read and reviewed, and we based our further research questions in part on your case.

In continuing our research, I would like to personally invite you to participate in a survey we are conducting to get perspective from people who have participate in the RfA process. The survey will only take a few minutes of your time, and will aid furthering our understanding of online communities, and may assist in the development of tools to assist voters in making RfA evaluations. We are NOT attempting to spam anyone with this survey and are doing our best to be considerate and not instrusive in the Wikipedia community. The results of this survey are for academic research and are not used for any profit nor sold to any companies. We will also post our results back to the Wikipedia community.

This survey is part of an ongoing research project by students and faculty at the Carnegie Mellon University School of Computer Science and headed by Professor Robert Kraut.

Take the survey

Thank you!

If you have any questions or concerns, feel free comment on my talk page.

CMUResearcher (talk) 19:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Images of Tucson, AZ

Your bot deleted four images from the article for Tucson, AZ just now. Is there some protocol for the timing of deleting images? If I'd known that these images were scheduled for deletion, I could have gone out and taken similar images myself and uploaded them as replacements, but now I'm not even sure what a couple of them looked like. Is there any way you can provide me with limited resolution pictures so I can approximate them myself? Eegorr (talk) 06:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

DOH! I just realized that your bot only commented out references to deleted images... good work! I will ask my question elsewhere. Thanks. Eegorr (talk) 07:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Rage Against the Machine nude picture

In the archives for Talk:Rage Against the Machine, there was fighting regarding the nude picture. Well, anyway, the consensus was "Keep", and the picture stayed. So, at some point, the picture gets removed (I believe) by some random editor, possibly a moral guardian. Another user tries to put the image back into the article, because it was meant to be there, and this bot of yours removed it. I know it's not your fault; I just wanted to point out that the bot seems to have totally screwed up. Thoughts? --LordNecronus (talk) 09:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

If you're referring to File:Ratm.jpg, it was deleted by User:PhilKnight for lacking a fair-use rationale. If you're referring to some other image, please specify which one. In any case, the bot removed the image because the image had been deleted, and the bot was simply performing routine clean-up. --Carnildo (talk) 21:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Deleting Images

Hello, please talk to me if you have any questions about my images. Please...Please Please Do Not delete images without my permission! If you have an issue with that, I will provide my image address so we can exchange phone numbers and talk about this on the phone. My photos are legitimate and directly from the source. Thank you very much! Modelmanager (talk) 22:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Modelmanager