User talk:OrphanBot: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
OrphanBot (talk | contribs)
654,820 edits
Logging warning message
Stop immediately!
Line 712: Line 712:
*Found image [[:Image:Vikingshipkils.jpg]] on 6 content pages
*Found image [[:Image:Vikingshipkils.jpg]] on 6 content pages
*Found image [[:Image:Yaracuy_flag.gif]] in [[Template:Flags of Venezuela]]
*Found image [[:Image:Yaracuy_flag.gif]] in [[Template:Flags of Venezuela]]

== Stop immediately! ==

You are deleting many of the images by one of Wikipedias best and most recognized photographers, [[User:Kils|Uwe Kils]]- He has clearly marked the images as gfdl self, although he does not use the tag. -- [[User:Egil|Egil]] 07:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 07:13, 26 January 2006

If the bot is malfunctioning, posting on this talk page will cause it to stop editing immediately.

This bot is run by User:Carnildo. Please leave any messages at User talk:Carnildo --Carnildo 03:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you need to stop the bot, simply edit this page. The bot will notice it the next time it loads an image description page, and will stop running.

Comments here, please

The bot is removing unsourced images from pages, which makes them orphans, thereby causing them to be deleted later. Is this its intention? I'm wondering if uploaders could find sources if given time. Sorry to interfere, but I've never seen this bot at work before. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's the point. It takes too long to orphan the images by hand, so people have been deleting the images without orphaning them first. This is an attempt to fix that. --Carnildo 09:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, got it. Sorry for the interruption. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your bot orphaned Image:OPI.jpg and removed it from Oral sex when it already had a {{PD}} tag. Is this correct functioning? -- nae'blis (talk) 15:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way to put a time delay on the marking? There are people who don't understand copyright law as well as they should adding "no source" markers mistakenly (like to book cover scans, geez), and this bot is whacking them off pages within 24 hours, so fixing the mistake requires editing both image and all its uses. It would make more sense to orphan them at the end of the 7-day period. An immediate note to the talk warning of impending deletion would still be handy, so as to trigger watchlists. Stan 17:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

This is a really worthy work you're doing, and a big help! Thank you very much, especially for the Removed from the following pages notices. I like it :-) --Peter 16:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply regarding the picture in question, and I do know I am unaware of it licensing, that is the reason why I put it in that catagory, I figure I let someone that is more capable in those regard - figure it out. So if it gets deleted it gets deleted and I do not care, I will have to find one that more appropriate. So tell me what you thought of my user page, I did a massive overhaul in regard to user friendliness and inter-related link among my accounts acrosss various wiki platforms. As always thank you for your help Paul.Paquette

HELLO! C3PO!

This bot, as it currently operates, is a menace. It not simply alters content, but removes and marks it for deletion. The entire point of policing images for copyright vios is so Jimbo won't get sued. This means being able to DISCRIMINATE between Orphan images which pose a high risk of this from those which donot. So please explain how a map of The Tetrarchy of Diocletian or a photo of an ancient bas relief potraying members of the Praetorian Guard or of the British army's Military Cross fits this criteria? At the very LEAST your bot should INFORM the uploader of the problem. This should be a small task for an expert programmer such as yourself. There are certain jobs for which bots are unsuitable. Deciding which content should be removed or deleted is certainly among them. Please turn it off and keep it off until it is improved. Thanks--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 09:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before ranting, please familiarize yourself with exactly what the bot does. All it does is search for images that some editor has already tagged with {{nosource}}, {{unknown}}, or equivalent, and removes those images from articles. It does not tag images for deletion, and it does not delete content. Oh yes, and the bot hasn't been running since early New Years' Day. --Carnildo 19:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please Stop!

This is ridiculous! I don't know how to find out who tagged the image since it apparently has been permanently deleted. But it seems unlikely that a human would do so, since nobody in their right mind would assume there's a copyright on a place name in local writing. Common Man 04:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was tagged by User:Dbenbenn on October 7. It's quite believable that such an image could be copyrighted, since many writing styles are art forms in and of themselves. I'd suggest making a replacement, or better still, typing in the replacement using Unicode characters. --Carnildo 07:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop

Images should not be removed from articles until they have been properly deleted. Sam Spade 09:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'd prefer page after page of red image links because the deleting admin was too busy to remove the image from the pages using it? Better to run the bot now, while it's still easy to find out what pages are using the image. --Carnildo 02:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop

Images should not be removed from articles until they have been properly deleted. Sam Spade 09:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discobolus

I inserted image from discus thrower. --Mario todte 19:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


But this is ridiculous..

This bot tagged the image uploaded by me, which was cropped from an image on Wikipedia which explicitly mentions that it has been released into the public domain. Infact I have been tagged for not mentioning my source, which is ridiculous since 3 lines above that nasty notice is a mention of where I got my image from. (My Image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bus-Topology.gif)

If you would care to look above, you would notice that I had explicitly mentioned that it was cropped from a picture on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NetworkTopologies.png), which is in Public Domain (it is mentioned on the image page). The original picture contains all the topologies together, and to improve content, I cropped each topology and added content to the various topology pages. I think things couldn't get more obvious than this.. This bot is a menace as it will definately remove images since it cannot read text 3 lines above its post!

--Shashank Shekhar 16:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. The bot can't read the note of "I found it at this URL". But it can read the {{somewebsite}} tag you put on the image description page just fine, and based on that tag and the age of the picture, it decided that the picture needed to be removed from the article. In order to be used on Wikipedia, an image needs both a source and a copyright status, and you only provided the source. --Carnildo 02:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images

You sent me a message regarding some unsourced images. Once I have found the source, how do I source the images, what exactly do I have to do? Can you help me out here? Street walker 05:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image sourced

I've sourced the images Image:Man_with_Thirunamam_And_Headgear.jpg and Image:Swamithoppe_Palliyarai.jpg and added them to the appropriate articles. - Vaikunda Raja 18:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism warning

Stop posting to User talk:Giantcn, please.  Denelson83  06:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not my fault he's uploaded so many unsourced images. In any case, I'll add a temporary exception to OrphanBot's notification procedure. --Carnildo 07:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

movie poster sources

From what I understand, movie posters are fair use without a source. I looked at, for example, the James Bond pages, and those movie posters have no source but are not tagged as such (see Die Another Day. Are you going to require a source for every poster and DVD cover for films? This would end up being hundreds of pages... Steve-O 06:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image-British India Hundi

Thank you for letting me know that the image didn't had a proper copyright tag.

File:British India hundi.jpg
Image Source

I have appended a proper tag for the image. Please let me know if I need to do anything else. The following webpage is the source of the image [1]

--Aravind Parvatikar 07:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, {{PD-IndiaGov}} is incorrect. The person who created it misunderstood the Right to Information Act. As far as I'm aware, information published by the India government is copyrighted for 60 years. --Carnildo 08:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Log of unusual finds

More than one match in page Governor of Massachusetts

Stop immediately!

You are deleting many of the images by one of Wikipedias best and most recognized photographers, Uwe Kils- He has clearly marked the images as gfdl self, although he does not use the tag. -- Egil 07:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:OrphanBot&oldid=36759351"