User talk:Carnildo/Archive4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


My User talk page[edit]

Don't bother to continue adding notices to my talk page about images of Canadian government politicians whose status are in question because of legal issues. I have given up trying to fight for legal use of these images against Wikipedia so this issue is now no longer my problem. SD6-Agent 16:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

You've been added to the "do not notify" list. --Carnildo 04:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Amanda Lepore Swatch[edit]

I was the original creator of the Amanda Lepore Wikipedia and I didn't notice that there had been a request made for the "swatch" photo [[1]] These are photos I myself found all over the internet, placed them together, resized them, fixed the colour, enlarged the main focus of the watch and added the shadowed box around it. I'm assuming this is fair use, however I'm not familiar with the correct copyright information that I need to do to regain the photo. I don't see the reason for a copyright release since the photo is technically merchandise that somebody photographed, not a work of art.

Also my other image [[2]]on Amanda Lepore has been threatened since October to be removed despite the fact that I've added several reasons for it being fair use. Can you help me in finally getting it accepted as usable? Thanks. --Speakslowly 20:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for your reminder about your copyright concern re the Augustinian logo. Logo info may be obtained from Father Michael Endicott, OSA of the Augustinian Order. His email address

You are one of the subjects of an RfC[edit]

You have been named as one of the subjects of an RfC at [3] --Silverback 06:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the laugh. After deleting so many unsourced images, I needed something to lighten things up. --Carnildo 07:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

WP:FU: Policy or guideline? What are we willing to defend?[edit]

I seem to be confused once again. If you have a chance, can you correct what I have gotten wrong at Template talk:Album infobox 2?

XSoD merge[edit]

I noticed you commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red screen of death. Could you come and comment at Talk:Blue screen of death#Foo Screen of Death merge? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

"Be Bold" dispute[edit]

Thank you for intervening in this dispute. As you requested, I have posted a detailed explanation for my position on the guideline's talk page. Monicasdude 23:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Consider it increased by 10% by this edit summary. - brenneman(t)(c) 05:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Shoe polish[edit]

Hi Carnildo. Thank you for pointing out the image ststus problems on the FAC for shoe polish. I think I have addressed them, but I'm not very expert when it comes to image copyright, so please feel free to advise. I would very much like to resolve any image copyright issues. Proto t c

Further to this, I've uploaded a free to use image, replacing the dubious image in question. I hope this satiisfies your issues with the article. If it does, please reconsider your vote If it doesn't, please let me know why. Proto t c 10:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)



Thanks for the "tough love". 'lol' I fixed the problem the way User:Sherool suggested on my talk page. --Liberlogos 06:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

mugshot template[edit]

What I've been able to determine about mug shots: At any level of government (local, state, fed) [4] they are public records that are publicly accessible and copiable [5] if they have been released. --Fallout boy 02:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, after further research I have found that there is a bit of controversey regarding their distribution and what copiable constitutes [6], so for the time being I have changed the template until I can determine what the exact regulations.--Fallout boy 10:35, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

University of Michigan - images[edit]

I believe that I have solved the problems you noted. Please let me know if there is anything else. Pentawing 04:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the survey...[edit]

.. which is far better and more detailed than mine (which in all honesty was rather a quick and dirty hack). User:Sj has invited me to look into Wikipedia:WikiProject Quality spot check and I think you might be interested too. Regards, Kosebamse 11:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Public domain[edit]

Since you seem to know your way through "fair use" thickets, I thought you might be interested and/or knowledgeable to help along at User:Lupo/Public domain... Lupo 10:06, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The Great Calamity[edit]

Please could you sign your comment on AFD for the article "The Great Calamity". --Philip Baird Shearer 09:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Dawson Creek, British Columbia[edit]

Can you please review the images at this Dawson Creek article. I plan to put it up as a FAC soon and would like to avoid any complications. I am specifically concerned with Image:Dawson Creek 1996.jpg. It is an air photo taken 10 years ago by the province. I use them in my mapping software at work but got this copy is from an online GIS application at a provincial ministry website. At my work we bought the licensing rights to use the the photos (about 100 photos) which we manipulate with other data. We give print-outs of these images out for free but it is data we are not allowed to give out. They are georeferenced to the 1:20,000 BCGS map grid. Of course, there is no data attached to this image posted on Wikipedia (it is simply a cut&pasted image of a section of two map sheets). If you know what the appropriate tag is, if it is indeed permitted, please let me know. Also, let me know what the appropriate tag is for Image:DawsonCreek logo.png, a version of the city's logo (other versions have slogans or other wording). And the flag was emailed to me from city hall after emailing them a request to use it on Wikipedia. Thank you in advance for any help you can provide. --maclean25 04:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, does it matter that it is a Canadian flag and logo? --maclean25

Kindred (poem) Copyvio[edit]

heya ;] I was curious about your copyvio tagging of Kindred (poem) I was wondering where it's copied from? --VileRage (Reply|C|Spam Me!*) 03:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe it to be from Ruth Bidgood's poetry book Kindred. It seems likely: Kindred (poem) states the poem was written in 1986 by Ruth Bidgood, and she had a poetry book by that title published in 1986. --Carnildo 19:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Fixed it ;] Added 'from Ruth Bidgood's poetry book Kindred' to the copyvio tag, thanks! ;] --VileRage (Reply|C|Spam Me!*) 20:40, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


I noticed that you cast a vote on the FA nomination for Hollaback Girl, and you don't seem to have been notified on your Talk page that User:Raul654 has cleared and restarted the nomination. If you want to recast your vote, you should do so at the article's new FA page. --keepsleeping say what 04:28, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

RfA thanks[edit]

I'd like to thank you for your support of my RfA. As I wrote, I was looking forward to feedback from the community, and I would like to let you know that you should please feel free to leave any further feedback for me you may have for me in the future at my Talk page. Thanks again. Jkelly 08:38, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Status - 25% of all page loads fail[edit]

I noticed that someone under your name commented "Where do I indicate "25% of all page loads fail"?" That, I suppose, would be one of the "other symptoms". Do you think it's necessary? By the way, what do you think of the script? — Ambush Commander(Talk) 23:48, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that something along the lines of "some page loads may fail" would be useful. Right now, it's possible to indicate that editing the encyclopedia may fail, but not to indicate that simply reading pages may sometimes fail. Also, a symptom of "images not loading" would be useful in the event that the problems with the image server return. --Carnildo 08:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Suggestion duly noted and probably will be added. :) — Ambush Commander(Talk) 21:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


It appears that in the context one or fewer (existing or potential) articles, "potential article" really needs to be defined/qualified/etc as it makes the deletion a matter to be subjectively determined by the next observer. I attempted to exercise the {{db-a9}} criterion but got reverted by a certain incorrigible inclusionist whom I don't feel the need to identify.

I noticed that this loop-hole was added by Eugene van der Pijll [7] who was concerned about preserving Zevenhuizen [8] which seems reasonable. I also noticed that "Zevenhuizen" deals with individual towns, which I would assume would be best disambiguated as "{TOWN}{, LARGERPOLITICALUNIT}{, ETC}" rather than parenthetically, so maybe it would be reasonable to restrict A9 to dab pages whose links use parentheses, due to the differences in how the topics are referenced in common parlance. (?) — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 07:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Request for arbitration[edit]

Please take notice that I am filing a complaint against you at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. - Ted Wilkes 23:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Please take notice as to how little I care. --Carnildo 00:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Nonexistant bands are easiest on the ears, I find[edit]

I've seen a few band articles go by that don't even assert existance, much less any sort of notability.

True. Chalk it up to selective memory: the ones that claim to be the greatest bands in the whole wide world tend to stick in my mind. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding edits by and myself on politics related stub templates[edit]

Please forgive me as I may ramble. I am a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics and I have a couple of comments regarding the reverts that you made. Firstly, I apologize for causing you so much trouble today. The suggestion to amend the stub templates was around since the project inception and I had just recently began to follow-through on that suggestion, with only a couple done. I had only done a couple because I was not sure how the changes would be received and I would have changed them back if there were problems. Also, please do not think badly of User:, this user thought that it would be helpful to do some grunt work. I, of course, would have preferred to discuss the changes than see anybody work for nothing, but I did not know beforehand who, if anybody, might object to the changes. Again, sorry for the trouble. --Robert Harrisontalk contrib 23:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand the idea behind linking the stub templates to the WikiProject. The problem with that sort of change is that it implies a sort of "ownership" of the articles by a particular WikiProject, and that by editing an article, someone is helping a specific project, rather than helping Wikipedia as a whole. Also, some of the more detailed stub types could legitimately link to many projects: a hypothetical stub tag for New Jersey state highways could link to WikiProject New Jersey, WikiProject Highways, and WikiProject Transportation. --Carnildo 19:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Input appreciated in WP:FLC[edit]

Do you mind having a look at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Oh My Goddess episodes whenever you have time? We are having a bit of an argument on the fair use of images on this list and I think we could benefit from a third opinion on this issue. Thanks a lot! -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 20:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


If you have the time, I was wondering if you could have a look at The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask article and inform me if the images contain the proper copyright rationale? The rationale provided is presented in the same form as the images in the Super Mario 64 article. Thanks. —Hollow Wilerding 22:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Lamest edit wars ever[edit]

It was supposed to be a parody of User:Puppetmaster's blanket statement that "everybody" thinks that month first is superior. — JIP | Talk 07:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

For those not in the know on that particular edit war, it looks like a gratuitous attack on Americans. --Carnildo 09:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry Carnildo, but I had to restore "license" to the template, per my comments on the talk page. No offense intended! BD2412 T 19:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you in a pale yellow mood?[edit]

Hello, Carnildo. I saw this at the time that you did it. I was hoping to have a pale background colour on my user page, without altering existing images, etc., so I looked at the coding to see what you had done, but it was too complicated.

If ever you're in a pale yellow mood, please feel free to visit my page!

I do realize that it might be complicated, though (I see you don't have background colour on your own user page), as in the case of Jimbo, there was already background colouring, so you presumanly just had to change one number to another in a couple of places, rather than inserting a whole pile of new stuff. So if this is something that would take you more than a minute, I'll fully understand if you just ignore this message. Cheers. AnnH (talk) 22:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

(A few minutes later) SlimVirgin saw my message and very kindly changed the colour for me, so you don't need to bother. Thanks anyway! AnnH (talk) 23:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Providence, Rhode Island - image question[edit]

I am thinking of putting this article up for FAC down the road. However, I need your opinion concerning the images. Thanks. Pentawing 06:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd look into finding a replacement for Image:ProvidenceRI flag.png, since the Flags of the World licensing terms aren't really compatible with Wikipedia. Other than that, the images look good. --Carnildo 07:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I am not sure how to obtain a free copy of the city's flag, given that I am not much of an artist nor am I sure that the Providence website would provide one. If you know of some other means of obtaining such an image, please tell me. Pentawing 20:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
One option would be to grab an image off the Providence website, and use it under "fair use": it's a pretty clear-cut case, and doesn't have the explicit "no commercial or political use" restrictions of the FotW image. Alternately, if the current version of the flag is old enough (pre-1977), the official version of the flag is probably in the public domain. Also, if the city seal is old enough, it's not copyrighted, and you could make a version of the flag by putting the seal in the middle of a rectangle and coloring it. --Carnildo 01:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

De Lorean DMC-12[edit]

I've fixed your queries you posted at FAC except for your third point which I cannot address myself. I hope you can now consider a Support vote at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/De Lorean DMC-12/archive1, thanks. — Wackymacs 10:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


Please relook at Jesus to see if you want to support it for featured article status. Thanks. Scifiintel 18:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

He must have found a photograph! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomasine Church[edit]

You voted delete. See Saint Thomas Christians. Clinkophonist 21:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

What was-[edit]

What was the Realmedia file of, that was removed from the Psychedelic Music Article? I'm just curious. Michael 22:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

It was a RealMedia audio stream. No idea what it was, since I don't have RealPlayer on my computer. --Carnildo 00:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

100 article study[edit]

I thought you might like to know I incorporated your 100 article study into my own subpage on the number of articles in wikipedia: User:R. fiend/How many articles does Wikipedia really have?. I had to recategorize many from your synopsis at the bottom to fit in to my classification. Other than the fact that we seem to classify stubs differently, your results seem to fit in reasonably well with my larger study. Do check it out. If you notice any problems let me know. Thanks. -R. fiend 19:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks good. Most likely, the reason for the different results in "substubs" and "charts" is that I grouped the two together. The difference in number of stubs is that I would classify anything up to three paragraphs as a stub. --Carnildo 07:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Fred Phelps Article[edit]

On the page nominating the Fred Phelps article for FA, you objected on the grounds of a "bad image." Now that that image has been removed from the page, might you re-consider your vote?Mistergrind 00:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Image galleries[edit]

You recently commented at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Proposal_to_modify_WP:NOT_an_image_gallery. In a related development, another, in my mind, valuable Image gallery is up for deletion (AfD. Please comment as you see fit. Dsmdgold 15:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


Hi, your bot has tagged Image:Bjorn.o.nelson.jpg, a PD image as a no-source image. If there is no source, that is, the uploader uploads it from his collection, how will there be a source information unless he prefers to enter it? I guess the bot should catch only those no source images where no copyright info is provided. Thought you may want to look into this. btw, I have not uploaded the image, so I do not know about the source. Also, while you may notify the original uploader, what happens if he doesn't log on to Wikipedia for a week or if he has left the project? These questions are more out of curiosity. Pl. reply on my talkpage. --Gurubrahma 11:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

My bot does not tag images. The only thing it does is remove images that are already tagged from articles.
In the more general case, this was discussed in great detail when speedy-deleting unsourced images was first allowed. The conclusions were:
  • Unsourced images represent a liability to Wikipedia. Without knowing where the image came from and who created it, there is no way to tell a public-domain image from a copyright violation. Consequently, all unsourced images need to be deleted.
  • Many images are improperly tagged, particularly those tagged with {{PD}} or {{GFDL}}. Many people don't understand copyright law, and think that any image is public-domain just because it's on a webpage somewhere. Without knowing the source, it's impossible to check this.
  • The uploader should have provided source information when he first uploaded the image. If he's gone on a long vacation or has left the project, that's just too bad.
  • If someone uploads an image that they created, they should say so, and should use a copyright tag such as {{PD-self}} or {{GFDL-self}}.
In the specific case of Image:Bjorn.o.nelson.jpg, it was uploaded by User:Bronks with a tag of {{PD}}, and no other information. User:Petaholmes tagged it as unsourced two weeks later. Based on the dither pattern and aliasing effects in the image, I'd judge that the image is a scan from a magazine or newspaper, probably from the mid to late 1980s. In that case the image is still copyrighted, and will be for the next 70 years or so.
--Carnildo 21:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam:The_Muslim_Guild#User_talk:Jimbo_Wales--Striver 17:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

longest word ...[edit]

Sorry, but I don't see what vandalism I reinstated by rolling back the "buzz lightyear" goofiness in Longest word in English. - DavidWBrooks 20:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment[edit]


--J7 08:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dinosaur[edit]

I have left notes by your oppose. Could you please see to them? Thanks a lot, Spawn Man 22:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: WTF?[edit]

Yes. It's called human error. :) I pressed the "rollback" button by mistake. Please see [9]. Thanks. --Durin 01:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

CfD: Wikipedians by politics[edit]

hi, i hope u don't mind me contacting u like this. maybe i'm misinterpreting the situation, or maybe i'm just a bit stupid, but i don't think the argument to remove is coming across clearly. i'd genuinely like to understand why you want them removed. if you have time, could you add more detail? Veej 14:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

A question regarding Square One Shopping Centre[edit]

There is a particular user known by Mb1000 who is attempting to add three images to the almost-qualifies-for-a-stub-tag-article Square One Shopping Centre. He is insulting the numerous Wikipedians—including myself—who are trying our best to resolve this issue; he does not want to compromise in any possible way whatsoever. Someone who knows a great deal of Wikipedia:Images, which is you, really needs to stop his actions, which is why I have left you this message. Please attempt to fix the situation. It would be muchly appreciated. Thank you. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 20:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Carnildo, it's me Mb1000. User:Madchester, along with Hollow Wilerding and User:Skeezix1000 have launched this war of sorts against a particular photograph on the Square One Shopping Centre page. This has been going on for a while. The above three users claim that my version of the article with the third image included is a violation of the Wikipedia:Images policy. I believe that this is outrageous. The image does no such thing. Now in an effort to have the photograph removed they are trying to have a certain paragraph of they article removed so that the photograph would have to be also removed. I took this before the AMA and this was the neutral third party opinion of User:Gator1 from the AMA:

"It is my unbiased opinion that Mb1000's version of the page at [10] is superior. I examined the policy cited by Madchester and believe that neither version of the page violates this policy. Madchester was concerned that the pictures clutter the text, but Mb1000's latest version seems to do no such thing. In fact, in my opinion, the gallery version of the page seems rather awkward.
"While there are a large number of pictures for such a short article, Mb1000's placement of them as of December 16, 2005 at 03:50 is not, in my opinion, in violation of policy and is more pleasing to the eye.
"Thus, the only really relevant criteria to make my determiantion was asthetics. I understand that Madchester beleives that his/her version is superior, but, as a third party neutral, I was asked to give my neutral opinion as an uninvolved third-party. In my opinion, Mb1000's version is more asthetically pleasing than the gallery compromise that Madchester has put forth."

Madchester has completely disregarded the AMA opinion.

Also, I would like to point out that I have not been rude nor insulting to anyone. I simply cited the Don't be a d*** policy.

Anyways, thanks for listening. --Mb1000 21:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

If you honestly expect that Carnildo is going to reply, then we'll be here for about fifty years. I just realized this in relation to one of my comments posted above — request. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 20:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Slashdot story[edit]

Any specific reason why you called the Autobiography guideline a "policy" of which one can be "in violation"? — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-20 21:23

Hmm I saw this Slashdot story too, sort of amused me though. Any particular reason why you submitted it, have you got a hatred against Jimbo or soemthing? — Wackymacs 21:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I thought it was too good a laugh not to submit. And my original submission described it as "against Wikipedia's guideline" -- Zonk must have decided that "in violation of Wikipedia's policy" sounded better. --Carnildo 22:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Classic Slashdot editor, when the story isn't controversial enough, make stuff up!.. —Locke Cole 02:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Orphan bot[edit]

Hi is orpah bot also going to orphan images tagged with {{nolicence}}, this category of images is growing and just is just as troublesome as {{nosource}}.--nixie 06:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, once I finish with {{nosource}}. --Carnildo 08:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


Hi, I was just wondering why you removed the images from three stubs: Buffy, Star Wars and Star Trek. I thought screencaps were allowed. For example, the Buffy screencap I took myself, so surely under 'free use' it can be used. Thanks. --Cooksey 00:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

They aren't allowed. A screencap is a portion of a non-licensed copyrighted work, so it can only be used under "fair use", and Wikipedia's "fair use" policy does not permit such images to be used in templates. --Carnildo 00:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Economy of the Iroquois[edit]

Hi Carnildo, could you please comment on the use of Image:Turning stone oneida casino.jpg in the article Economy of the Iroquois on its FAC? I'm unsure if the image can be used and would appreciate your opinion on the matter. Thanks alot! --Spangineer<;sup>es (háblame) 00:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Featured list[edit]

I removed the image at List of One-day International records, so hopefully you'll reconsider your vote. -- Iantalk 01:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


Your bot made a formatting mistake when removing an unsource image from Light's Vision (see diff). Does it do this regularly, or is it just a random fault?--cj | talk 07:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. I've fixed the bug. The bot would have only made that sort of mistake when there are two images one right after the other without anything between them -- most of the time, two images in a row will have a space between them, and the bug won't be triggered. --Carnildo 08:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


I'm not sure if anyone's asked this already (it seems to me that somebody might have), but does OrphanBot automatically notify the original uploaders of files that it identifies? -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 10:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't notify uploaders. All OrphanBot does is remove images that have already been tagged from articles, and it doesn't do it in a particularly efficient manner, either: it simply goes through the category in alphabetical order, so someone who's uploaded 50 unsourced images would get 50 notices on their talk page -- or more, if the user tagging the image also notified the uploader. --Carnildo 23:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Well how difficult would it be to figure out a way to notify users if something they've uploaded is up for deletion? It seems like a useful thing to do. (And anybody that uploaded 50 entirely unsourced images, probably deserves that on their talk page.)-Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 02:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Orphan bot[edit]

There seems to be an error here. See: [11], [12], etc - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 03:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I found the problem: an absolutely idiotic typo on my part. If you see the bot malfunctioning again, post on its talk page to get it to stop running immediately. --Carnildo 06:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I have a problem with your bot. I cannot see the diffs to check what the bot did. My internet explorer crashes as soon as I click on the diffs (even the ones above). Any ideas why? (I can check any other diffs I want). Renata3 06:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Never mind, I figured. The page size was like 700kb. Renata3 06:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, an unfortunate side-effect of adding the phrase "<!-- Unsourced image removed: --> before each and every letter of an article. --Carnildo 06:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I've added some safeguards to the bot. It will now stop running if it thinks it's making a mistake: replacing an image with a caption of more than 400 bytes, replacing an image with a caption of less than 0 bytes, or replacing an image more than two times on a single page. --Carnildo 07:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


Please do not protect pages you are involved in. Next time, put a request up at RfP. Thanks. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Fair use[edit]

There's a new comment section on Wikipedia talk:Fair use regarding your recent revert on WP:FUC that you might be interested in commenting on. That should satisfy my guideline of not overriding another admin's decision without consensus as well as answering what that sentence's intended meaning is. --Syrthiss 15:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

OrphanBot issue[edit]

See this edit: [13].

The image tag wasn't on a line by itself. By changing that to <!-- Unsourced image removed: Image... -->, it broke the formatting. You should change OrphanBot to add a newline as necessary, for example if you are using a regular expression, replace "[[Image:(.*?)]]\n?" with "<!-- Unsourced image removed: $1 -->\n" --Quarl 08:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. The problem with simply adding a newline is that it will break things in cases like the "Pokemon currency symbol", where an image was used within a line of text. I'm going to try modifying the regex to also match any non-newline whitespace after the image link and see if that fixes the problems. --Carnildo 10:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh, I see, I hadn't thought of that. Maybe use the above heuristic only when the image is at the start of the line? Well, I'm sure you know the various cases much better than I do :) —Quarl (talk) 20:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:Mcgraw.jpg copyright info[edit]

You flagged this picture copright unknown. It uploaded it, my best friend took it, he gave me his permission to upload it (infact, ordered me to). I don't know how to do what needs to be done to indicate that, but as far as I know, that makes it totally legit. Cornell Rockey 15:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Srebrenica identified victims[edit]

Carnildo i see that your bot removed this image Image:Identified Victims.jpg from Srebrenica massacre article because of lack of copyright ingformation. The photographer is Tarik Saramah. I know this photographer personally and he allows the use of his images for such purposes (fair use) especially since they are such a small quality (14K) like this. Let me know if this is sufficient information for you. Thanks --Dado 17:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


Image:SaddamBaghdadwalkabout.jpg: the justifications given there look pretty solid to me; I'm not sure exactly what your bot is looking for, so I'm not sure what additional it might want. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

It's looking for the tags {{nosource}}, {{unknown}}, or equivalent. It doesn't care about any of the other tags, or any other text on the page. --Carnildo 04:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
So, do you think that particular image has problems? And if so, precisely what? -- Jmabel | Talk 04:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
The only problem I see is that it's tagged with the {{no license}} and {{tv-screenshot}} templates. It could use a bit more detail on the source (what the broadcast was, when it was made, and so forth), but mostly it's fine. --Carnildo 04:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced images[edit]

Please consider leaving a message at the uploader's user talk page after OrphanBot has tagged an image as unsourced, since she/he's the person who know best about where the image comes from. Meanwhile, I'm interested to know if the tagged images are listed simultaneously to images and media for deletion? Thanks. — Instantnood 09:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

OrphanBot does not tag images as unsourced. It just removes images that are already tagged from articles. Images that OrphanBot removes are generally candidates for speedy deletion under grounds I4: images with unknown source or copyright status that have been on Wikipedia for over a week. --Carnildo 10:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I've created {{speedy-image-c}}, modelled after {{ifdc}}, to be tagged under the captions, in favour of hiding the images. I've also put up a request to notify the uploaders at template talk:no license. — Instantnood 11:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Colour changes on DX encoding[edit]

Hi, nice to see someone finally touch the page after I put so much work into the tables. But why did you change some of the color attributes? Were the short triplets (e.g #fff) not working with your browser? They should. I used them to save space since I was only using very simple colours. Imroy 10:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Everything was solid black for me. I suspect that Opera only supports the short form in styles, not in things like the "bgcolor" attribute. --Carnildo 22:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Euan Blair photo[edit]

I responded to the bot, which said that Image:Blair_euan.jpg had no source info. Source info was added (it came from a newspaper) but the bot removed the image from its only article (Euan Blair). Since the image now has source info, I have readded it to the article. Please make sure the bot doesn't mess with the image anymore. Thanks. -Tjss 22:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

OrphanBot commenting[edit]

The commenting is unnecessary and adds newlines to articles. The edit summary should suffice. ¦ Reisio 23:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Could you give an example of the bot adding an unneccessary newline to an article? --Carnildo 22:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC) ¦ Reisio 00:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Came here for the same reason. Mrtea (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Village pump[edit]

here How is that link "linkspam"? I think people should know about this trash, and I believe the anon's addition was intended to inform. I'm sure you have a good reason I'm not seeing, but I'd just like to say I didn't see a need to revert it. I didn't know that garbage site existed, but now I know thanks to that anon's post. I'm not trying to be contrary, but please tell me your thoughts. --DanielCD 22:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

It looked to me like someone had written up an anti-Wikipedia rant and was busy spamming it around to try to get attention. --Carnildo 22:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Euan Blair[edit]

I had already found source info for the Blair picture (Blair_euan.jpg). Why did you delete it? -Tjss 00:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I see no source information for that image. There's a copyright tag indicating that it's from a newspaper, but that's about as informative as saying "I got it off a website". --Carnildo 22:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject solicitations[edit]

Thanks for your activity i noted via my new "homemade watchlist"; i was abt to go fix those two. Have you any taste to weigh in on the edits it shows just before and after 1:00 UTC?
--Jerzyt 01:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Your bot[edit]

Clearly, either OrphanBot is completely automated, or if it is user-assisted, you missed the fact that the Motherland (anthem) article referred to an image and the subsequent removal of the image left the article in a less than satisfactory state. You may want to consider the fact that some articles make reference to images in future. Thanks Dysprosia 14:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Michigan State Capitol - images[edit]

During the article's FAC, you mentioned having several images of the building's legislative chambers. Out of curiosity, do you indeed have them? Pentawing 02:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Not in an accessible form. The majority of photos I've taken are currently in storage in my grandmother's attic about 3000 miles from here, and there's no good way for me to get to them. --Carnildo 05:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I am thinking of resubmitting the article sometime in the future. Should I hold off until you have access to the images? PentawingTalk 04:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
No. There's no telling when I'll have access to them. --Carnildo 06:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


Just wanted to drop a note of Great Thanks for the bot. As someone who's been working on dealing with the unsourced image problem for quite a while now, your bot is quite helpful and useful. I appreciate you writing it, and find the vitrol and anger addressed to you and it to be understandable, but sad and unfortunete. Good luck, and keep up the good work. JesseW, the juggling janitor 20:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Image help[edit]

Hello there! I see that you're somewhat of an expert on images here on Wikipedia. I'm fairly new when it comes to uploading images and I want to make sure I'm doing everything 'by the book'. I've uploaded Image:SupernaturalTitleCard.jpg and Image:DieRheintöchter.jpg. If you get time, do you think maybe you could look them over to make sure everything was done correctly? Or maybe point me to someone who can? I'd hate to not get 'caught' at this point and upload a bunch more, thinking I'm doing things right only to have everything deleted a couple months later. Thanks so much for your help! -Maaya 01:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:SupernaturalTitleCard.jpg looks good. Image:DieRheintöchter.jpg needs an explanation as to why it's in the public domain: in this case, it appears that it's because the image was published before 1923. The image description page could also use some more details, such as what it's a picture of, and when it was published.--Carnildo 22:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Carnildo, My problem with Orphanbot is that it makes no exceptions for images that are PD, but that a tag doesn't exist for (e.g., [[Image:10x.jpg]], there's no country tag for Yugoslavia). In that case, users often include reasoning why it's ok to reuse in the image in the description. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you wrote directly above, but it seems like you're saying that when an appropriate tag doesn't exist, including PD info in the description will suffice. I agree, but Orphanbot doesn't consider description/summary comments when removing images, which seems to contradict your own suggestion. Is there any way you could prevent Orphanbot from deleting images that have description/summary info, and leaving those cases to a human instead? --Osbojos 22:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
If there's no country-specific PD tag, then put the generic {{PD}} tag on the image and add a detailed description of exactly why it's in the public domain. --Carnildo 08:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok, but the generic PD tag is being phased out, I think this is just delaying the problem rather than solving it. Would it really be that hard to have the robot flag notag images that have summary information for human follow up instead of deleting them? I completely understand the need for Orphanbot, but when it makes a mistake, it's a lot of work to fix. --Osbojos 21:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it would be too hard. The majority of unknown-source and unknown-copyright images have some sort of summary information, usually useless source information like "found on Google", or a simple description of the image like "The Rolling Stones in concert". The images already get reviewed by the admin who deletes them from Wikipedia. --Carnildo 05:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Great work[edit]

I just wanted to thank you for the work your orphan bot does: I've seen it a number of times and I'm very pleased that we have it. I'm also thrilled to see the new messages safety switch feature being adopted. Thanks for your work! --Gmaxwell 16:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

RFA/William M. Connolley 2[edit]

You participated in the first RFA so you may be interested in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/William M. Connolley 2. (SEWilco 06:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC))

Only Warning[edit]

Mark Wagner -- touch the merkey article again and wiki admin or not, you will become a defendant in a Federal Lawsuit (which Wikimedia won't pay your legal costs for you) and your name will be listed at as an internet stalker. This is the only warning you will receive.

Hey, I hope you read this, but delete this comment if it's old news. Jeff seems to have come thru with his promise, and libeled you on Vryl 14:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
And he manages to get everything wrong except my name and approximate location. I wonder whose IP address he found? --Carnildo 19:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if Merkey knows that his actions, accessing the foundation servers without authorization (he's permbanned as far as I recall), is not only illegal but much easier to prosecute than whatever he's claiming you did? --Gmaxwell 14:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Request for a block if IP : Jeff Merkey is at it again on his article. Thanks. --Kebron 00:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Orphan Bot - Burmese writing issue[edit]

Thank you for your reply on User talk:Common Man#Please stop the bot!. I replied to you there, but there's one more thing I noticed: When the bot removed the picture, it also destroyed the syntax of the remaining text. Is this something anyone looks at or do you just hope that other editors will catch it? At least in the case of Monywa, this hasn't happened during several edits. Common Man 18:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll update the bot to try to spot that sort of situation and deal with it properly. --Carnildo 08:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Common Man 17:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

"no source" does not necessarily mean "delete"[edit]

An interesting outcome from User talk:Common Man#Please stop the bot!: Apparently the problem was caused by the following scenario:

  1. Someone (presumably from Burma) adds a little picture with the article title in Burmese writing and omits adding a souce.
  2. A user notices that there is no source and tags it as {{no source}}.
  3. The bot automatically orphans it.
  4. The next user sees an orphaned picture and deletes it.
  5. This is irreversible since the picture is gone.

It seems to me that there are several problems in this sequence:

  • We can't assume that everyone always follows the rules to the letter, and if they don't then their contributions automatically don't deserve to remain on Wikipedia. That assumption would be a clear violation of WP:FAITH, and it would in effect increase WP:BIAS. Especially people who post pictures related to other countries may not be native English speakers and are more likely to misunderstand the instructions. Or maybe the user felt it was obvious from the picture - we don't know. Anyway, we should cut such users some slack!
  • There are different understandings of what the "no source" tag actually means. Is it just a statement of fact, or a command to automatically delete at all cost?
  • There also may be different expectations of when to delete a picture. Is it enough to check that it's orphaned or is it expected to check why it became orphaned (if this is at all possible)?

Common Man 22:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

dbenbenn just told me that this was something Jimbo decreed. I can imagine that - and respect if - he has been under legal pressure which may supersede other Wikipedia principles. Common Man 00:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Homeschooling project[edit]

Hello, My name Master Scott Hall (you can call me Scott). I am relatively new contributing to Wikipedia, though I have been a user of it for some time. I am currently soliciting for interest in a Wikiproject that I have proposed on the subject of homeschooling. Before finding Wikipedia, my wife and I were seriously considering, but not quite convinced, to home educate our children.

After discovering the depth, scope, and long-term goals of Wikipedia, as well as the individuals driving it, I am convinced that WP has the potential to revolutionize homeschooling. I am also convinced that home education is the right choice for my family. I have, however, been somewhat discouraged by the oversight of home education in most of the education related projects on WP. There are many potential reasons for this discrepency, but I have resolved to try to do something about it.

Although I personally have very limited experience in building complex Wikiprojects, -templates, -portals, etc., I am confident that the right team can be assembled to tackle these issues. I would like to invite you to join this effort to make Wikipedia the resource for the home education of our children. If you are interested, please visits the temporary project page I have set up. Thank you --Master Scott Hall 23:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Project Launch. The Homeschooling project has moved to its new home at Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative education. Please visit the project page at your earliest convenience. If you have already discovered the move, please disregard this message. Thanks, Master Scott Hall 16:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Project Update: Our WikiProject Alternative education is going well. A large number of relevent articles have been assembled, evaluated, and sorted for the Adopt an article list. Alternative education (talk) and homeschooling (talk) have been selected as Focus articles. Please add them to your watch list so you can keep track of the latest changes, contributions, and discussions.
We want everyone wants to to stay as involved as they want, no matter how little time they have to contribute. If you've got a lot going and you simply can't find the time for regular contributions, just drop in from time to time to add your input to ongoing discussions. More input makes it easier for more active editors to make sure that their efforts are working toward concensus. If you feel that you don't have enough background in the subject at hand to make material contributions, you can still help by proof-reading and checking for readability. So, stay in touch, stay involved. Thanks, Master Scott Hall | Talk 07:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Can OrphanBot also update tag usage?[edit]

User:OldakQuill recently made a great new feature of Template:No source. If you tag an image with

{{no source|month={{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}}|day={{subst:CURRENTDAY}}|year={{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}}}

it will be categorized by tag date. This means the image can be promptly deleted after a week (see Category:Images with unknown source as of 11 January 2006, for example). The only problem, of course, is that a lot of people still just use {{no source}}, without the parameters.

Perhaps when OrphanBot goes to edit the description page of an orphaned image, it could update the no source tag at the same time? Thanks, dbenbenn | talk 00:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on that. As you note, it's a bit harder than a simple substitution. I'm also working on notifying uploaders. I hope to have the changes in place by the end of the week. --Carnildo 08:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Also, a minor bug report: when OrphanBot removes an image from a category, it lists the page as [[Category:FOO]], not [[:Category:FOO]]. See Image:Mexico.BajaCaliforniaState.CoA.01.jpg, for example. Presumably has the same issue with links from Image pages. dbenbenn | talk 00:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Images in categories and other images are rare enough that I never thought of that problem. --Carnildo 08:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom election[edit]

Thanks for your vote in the ArbCom elections, and for your determination to save me from myself. I think I might be able to give you some reassurance, because you are absolutely right to say that some people 'burn out' and have to take a complete rest. However, I don't think that will apply to me because I see ArbCom membership as a necessary part of advancing the interests of writing better articles. Although I have my specialisms, I like to go in to work on articles where I don't have much background, and that's certainly something that ArbCom will stimulate ("A change is as good as a rest" is a good English proverb!)

It occurs, however, that your reference to this may be a polite way of hiding a serious objection concerning how I might behave on ArbCom, and if this is so then I apologise for taking your time. David | Talk 13:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC) Testing 2

Articles For Deletion[edit]

Hi, a while ago you made some comments about the presence of bible-verse articles, and/or source texts of the bible, and you may therefore be interested in related new discussions:

--Victim of signature fascism | Don't forget to vote in the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections 18:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


This bot tagged an image I uploaded and someone later deleted it. However no one ever inform me. Or bothering to read the fact that it was a U.S. image from 1910 - 13 years before even the possibility of an active copyright. I have some images I have had to cchange license tags on three times because Wikipedia keeps changing its standards. It is very frustrating and deleting them without even informing the uploader is even worse. Rmhermen 23:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Bot bug[edit]

I've deleted Image:Blue Submarine -6 Screenshot.PNG as this was tagged unsourced on 5 Jan 2006, but I notice that OrphanBot had changed the tag date incorrectly to 15 Jan 2005 as part of its formating process - the date of the image's creation, not the date it was originally tagged as unsourced. I don't know if any other images are affected? (Unless of course I've completely misread the edit history, in which case sorry for disturbing you...) Regards, CLW 14:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

OrphanBot's functioning as intended (which may or may not be the best way, but that's beside the point). What happened was that OrphanBot loaded the image description page and found a "nosource" tag without a date. Rather than trawling through the edit history to find when it was added (which can be slow, unreliable, and server-intensive), OrphanBot simply uses the most recent image upload date. If you've got a better idea for how to figure out when the tag was added, I'd like to hear it. --Carnildo 18:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I think a better idea is to use the current date, i.e.
{{no source|month={{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}}|day={{subst:CURRENTDAY}}|year={{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}}}
Sure, the image won't get deleted for a few more days, but that's no big deal. And using a date more than a week old is bad, because it will put the image in a nonexistant category. dbenbenn | talk 03:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Temaples fair use[edit]

Hi could I ask you to keep an eye on Template:CanPM where I removed all the images from the template. I've reverted once, and would like to make the point that I'm not victimising the Canadians, but that it is a site wide policy. Thanks.--nixie 03:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it. --Carnildo 06:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Featured list candidates/List of South Park episodes[edit]

Please read the fair use rationales for season 1. I have ensured that all the pictures in season 1 help identify characters mentioned in the plot outline or illustrate the plot outline. This complies with the fair use policy and they are no longer merely 'decorative'. I still need to do this for the rest of the article so i agree it is not yet ready to be a featured list I jumped the gun a bit, I will be writing the rest in the next day or so. If you find my fair use rationales for season 1 unacceptable i would like to hear why, from reading your user page fair use is something you are heavily involved in and i would value your input so i can improve them. Discordance 22:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I finished writing the rationales and opposition to this article has dropped, however ALoan and myself included would like to hear from a fair use expert such as yourself. My rationales are brief but I do think they convey my reasons for fair use please let us know what you think Discordance 16:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


I've received a few emails from state employees stating no copyright claimed on their individual agency works, but I also have a few other emails in to the State trying to ascertain if there is a specific Alaska Statute or Administrative Code with respect to Copyright of state works. I will update the template once I get a response, hopefully with a specific cite. —akghetto talk 07:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:Al-Qādisiyyah medal.jpg[edit]

you deleted this image, saying that there is no URL source. however, i provided it. furthermore, this image is simply an image of an iraqi saddam-era medal. i dont believe copyright laws apply to something like that (it's like copyrighting the image of a US quarter) Dgl 18:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a photograph of a three-dimensional object. Even if the original object can't be copyrighted, any photo of it can. --Carnildo 23:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
regardless, i doubt there is a copyright issue of this image. check out the original source.

North American area codes[edit]

Uncle G's major work 'bot is about to move another ... er ... small hill. But a consensus is required on the naming scheme to be employed. Please review Category:Greek Area Codes, Category:United Kingdom area codes, and Category:North American area codes, and then contribute to the discussion at Talk:North American Numbering Plan#US-centric_area_code_page_titles. Uncle G 21:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for you comments[edit]

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

The problem is that "found it on Google Image Search" isn't enough source information to figure out what the copyright is. I suspect it's under simple copyright, in which case we can't use it on Wikipedia, since it wouldn't qualify for fair use. The image is simple enough that a replacement could be made by anyone with Office or some other graphing software.
Your userpage looks good -- and it's certainly a better design than mine! --Carnildo 07:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Three images[edit]

I recently uploaded Image:Badr Highway.gif, Image:Badr Campaign.GIF, and Image:Battle of Badr.jpg for the Battle of Badr page. All three of these images are copyrighted, but their creators have allowed the use of them under certain conditions. Could you please help me determine what license I should use? (All the relevant info is on the image pages) Your OrphanBot recently made some thinly-veiled threats against them, so I'm eager to get this resolved ASAP. Thanks! Palm_Dogg 08:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we can't use the images Image:Badr Highway.gif, Image:Badr Campaign.GIF, and Image:Battle of Badr.jpg. The restriction of "no commercial use" would cause problems if, in the future, Wikipedia were to do something like publish a CD to help pay for the costs of running the website. If you can convince the creator to license the images under something like one of the acceptable Creative Commons licenses, the images can stay. --Carnildo 05:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Ugh, I'll see what I can do. Thanks for getting back to me so fast. Palm_Dogg 15:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I uploaded which is more than 100 years ago. If it is not violating copy right, please do not delete this image.

I still don't know how to change image type.

By the way, how to become experience editors eg. Do i need to participate more edition, creation? Do i need to get acknowledge from other experienced editors? Pls, show me where to see the editor category information. Is it here? [14]

Thank you. Uzawaung 10:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I've re-classified the image as public domain. Since the subject of the image died in 1850, it's almost certain that the image was published before 1923, so it's in the public domain. You can change the copyright tag on an image by editing the image description page and replacing the "{{Don't know}}" with an appropriate tag from Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. --Carnildo 05:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


I finished writing the rationales and opposition to Featured list candidates/List of South Park episodes has dropped, however ALoan and myself included would like to hear from a fair use expert such as yourself. My rationales are brief but I do think they convey my reasons for fair use please let us know what you think of the rationales Discordance 16:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Honduras football images[edit]

Hi. OrphanBot left some messages on User talk:Chupu about Honduran football images. To be specific I have put a speedy delete on [[Image:Cdfederal.gif]] as it is a duplicate of [[Image:Federal.gif]] which has a clear licence. I have also licenced [[Image:Broncos.gif]], see its talk page for my justification but as a logo it shouldn't have licencing poroblems and I can confirm it is what it claims to be as I live in Honduras. Hope this helps, SqueakBox 15:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

crystal globe[edit]

Hi Carnildo,

it is not nececary to delete the Image:Crystal_globe.jpg - cause the author and copyright holder (Film Servis Festival KV) allowed to use it. I dont know the name of the status, but as I saw elsewhere - it is something like "this image is copyrighted but it is believed .......that it is OK:)

The image doesn't look like something we could claim "fair use" on, so a claim of {{PermissionAndFairUse}} can't be used. Simply having permission to use an image on Wikipedia isn't sufficient -- it needs to be permission to use it under a free license such as a Creative Commons license or the GFDL. I can't read Czech, so I can't tell what the permission statement says. --Carnildo 04:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Copyright status of Catolicos por la Raza.jpg[edit]

Hi. Your bot found an image I uploaded whose copyright status I was unsure of. I understand that the photographer is generally the copyright holder of photographic images, but I was unable to determine the name of the photographer. The photo is from a collection of personal papers housed in an archive at an educational institution. The person who donated the papers has passed away, and the University disavows ownership of the copyrights. So what are we to do?--Rockero420 17:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

In that case, the copyright is most likely to be owned by the photographer's heirs. As I see it, there are three options: (1) you can track down the owner of the copyright and ask for permission, (2) if you feel that the image is essential to the article, and cannot be replaced by a free-license image, you can claim "fair use" and tag it with the {{Non-free fair use in}} tag, or (3) you can wait until 70 years after the photographer's death, at which point (hopefully) the copyright will have expired. --Carnildo 04:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Just tag it for deletion.--Rockero420 19:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


Okay, please explain this [15]. ComputerJoe 18:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

What's to explain about it? You uploaded an image and tagged it with the copyright status of "I don't know" ({{Don't know}}), so OrphanBot removed it from the article using the image. --Carnildo 02:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh, yeah. LOL. I did add {{albumcover}} though, but forgot to remove {{Don't know}}. ComputerJoe 20:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


Okay, so orphanbot is efficieint, the guy who didnt know about such creatures who was trying to fix up the map in the geography of tasmania article, and nor did I. No doubt you enjoy justifying the good work. It's good work is gettting reverted on the article! SatuSuro 03:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC) *Yawn* again - OOOps!  :) Have had chat with User:Kelisi he's worked it out, I unreservedly apologise for my tone of message, keep up the good work!SatuSuro 04:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

You've been libeled![edit]

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey mentioned you in his MerkeyLaw site as a "stalker" and maker of death threats. He wrote almost identical comments about me on the same page. In my case, I know his statements to be 100% false, and I assume the same for you. Just thought you ought to know... *Dan T.* 03:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

  • *Yawn*. See Merkey's threat and the discussion thereof about halfway up this page. --Carnildo 03:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


It would have been nice if you had dropped me a message earlier, but yes, I did design it myself.

Quiensabe 23 January 2006 09;13 UTC

Notices of image uploading[edit]

Hi, recently I got this message from OrphanBot telling me that Image:Holly McPeak.jpg. Of course, I was well aware of this as *I* tagged it. As I've gained a better understanding of copyright issues and Wiki policies, I've gone back over my old uploads, and tried to find sources, where I failed to supply them. When I couldn't, I tagged them for (what I hoped was) speedy deletion. I was hoping that by tagging them myself, an admin would simply delete the images on sight (without any delay or warning). --Rob 11:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Probably the best tag for getting an unsourced or unknown-license image deleted quickly and without any fuss is {{db-unksource}}. --Carnildo 04:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

That was unfair![edit]

The photo pinoy sweets had a source and description ! Im putting it back. ta !

Map of Manhattan community boards[edit]

Hi !
Your bot removed Image:Mncb1map.PNG from this page. Please not that after Stan Shebs put a nosource tag, I added the source and the justification for using it in fair use. As a consequence, I put it back in the article.--Revas 20:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Tito/Nehru photo[edit]

Hi, your bot just removed Image:10x.jpg from multiple pages. While this image doesn't have a source tag, it's description includes info identifying it as public domain. I'd like you to take a look at it and use your judgment about returning it to these articles, or leave a note on my talk page. Thanks. --Osbojos 22:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that script (I'll not dignify it by calling it a 'bot') did the same to two of the images I uploaded (for the Kyudo article and the Kanjuro Shibata article). Description said I scanned it and used it with permission of the photog. Now, they're gone, mindlessly deleted, along with the attribution text I included with the image, because some flag was not set, some brainless script was let loose and I didn't happen to log in that week or keep up with the latest proclaimation by his holiness. I surrender. Jordan Langelier 19:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Occultation.jpg[edit]

I have clarified the copyright information for this photograph, per your request. Please note that this is a shared image file from the Wikimedia Commons website.

I am not particularly pleased that a) you deleted the picture the same day that you issued a warning thereby giving me virtually no time to address the issue, b) a copyright notice "self|cc-by-sa-2.5" had existed on that page since December 13th, so I don't understand why "the copyright status was unclear," and c) it should have also been clear from reading my caption that this photograph taken by the same person who posted it -- namely me, User:BartBenjamin.

I am still rather new to Wikipedia and therefore do not always know the best designation that various images should carry. Perhaps the {{GFDL-self-with-disclaimers}} designation that I have changed it to will more meet with your approval than the previous designation. Bart 01:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

What happened is a bit complicated: It looks like the image existed on both Wikipedia and Commons. The Wikipedia version didn't have any source information, and was tagged as such. The Commons version was tagged as {{self|cc-by-sa-2.5}}, and indicated the source. Because of the way the Wikipedia software works, the image shown was the copy from the English Wikipedia, while the description was a combination of the two, indicating that the image was unsourced, but under the cc-by-sa license (not that unusual, people often upload images and indicate a free license, but don't give enough information to verify it).
At this point, OrphanBot, a program I wrote to try to clean up the mess of unsourced images, came along and spotted the {{nosource}} tag on the Wikipedia copy of the image. Since it thought the image had no source information, it removed it from Occultation. Shortly afterwards, User:Nv8200p deleted the Wikipedia copy of the image, since it had been tagged as {{nosource}} for over a week. The copy of the image on Commons appears to be just fine. --Carnildo 05:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


Orphan-Bot keeps leaving messages for me about this image; all I did was revert to a previous version of the image; I never uploaded any version. --DrBat 05:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

It's messaging you because you're the most recent person on the uploaders list, and it keeps notifying you because you keep removing the notification. I'll see what I can do to keep this from happening in the future. --Carnildo 08:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Liverpool Manchester jpeg[edit]

Hi Orphanbot, You asked about the above jpeg I posted - I created it myself and therefore the copyright is mine. However it doesn't appear in any article as I can't be bothered putting it on the Manchester article page only for it to be deleted by one of the warring parties who can't agree on that page's contents.......--Apower 10:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)