Misplaced Pages

User talk:OrphanBot: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:22, 11 January 2006 editOrphanBot (talk | contribs)654,820 editsm Logging warning message← Previous edit Revision as of 05:13, 11 January 2006 edit undoSfmil (talk | contribs)12 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 2: Line 2:
|<font size="+3">If the bot is malfunctioning, posting on this talk page will cause it to stop editing immediately.</font> |<font size="+3">If the bot is malfunctioning, posting on this talk page will cause it to stop editing immediately.</font>
|} |}
MaLfUnCtIoN

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


Revision as of 05:13, 11 January 2006

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

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

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.

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 08:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
Ok, got it. Sorry for the interruption. SlimVirgin 10:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Stop

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

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)

Log of unusual finds

More than one match in page Governor of Massachusetts

Stop

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