Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitextInline

Revision as of 18:54, 7 July 2006 editCarnildo (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users21,472 edits →Bill of Rights← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 00:05, 19 November 2024 edit undoMediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs)Bots3,131,364 edits →ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message: new sectionTag: MassMessage delivery
Line 1:		Line 1:
			<div style="text-align: justify; background: #FFFF00; padding: 0 1em; border: 1px solid #000000; font-size: 140%; font-weight:bold">
	For all my images, I've ask the authorization from STScI. You could check with them...
	Thanks You!
	From the Author:
	«Balance of masses across Universe»
	Images Source: STScI
	Authorization: May 15th,2006.
			If you're here about an image, try asking your question at ].
	{{User:Carnildo/Nospam}}
	Archives: ] ] ] ]
			</div>
	{{User:Carnildo/Image FAQ}}		{{User:Carnildo/Image FAQ}}
Line 14:		Line 9:
	__TOC__		__TOC__
	==OrphanBot talk page==
	I'm going to clean up the nonsense that the OrphanBot-haters placed in the talk page. I'm also going to get rid of the "This article is being considered for deletion" tag. ] 02:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
			Archives: ] ] ] ]
	==Obselete Image Copyright Tag==
			== ] missing description details ==
	I have a question regarding the photo copyright tag used in the ] article. The tag contains a warning that the tag is obselete. I am not sure which copyright tag is appropriate for this particular photo. If you could check on the situation, your help would be appreciated. --] 23:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
	==Image2==
	I cropped moebiusmu.png and called it moebiusmu2.png. It got deleted, and the ancestry is plain as day. Please make the script smarter (e.g. $foo or $foo1 is valid, then $foo2 ought to be safe. =/
	] 02:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
			<div style="padding:5px; background-color:#E1F1DE;">'''Dear uploader:''' The media file you uploaded as:
			*]
			is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
			If you have any questions, please see ]. Thank you. ''Message delivered by ] (])'' 04:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC) </div><!-- Template:Add-desc-l -->
			==Why was Image deleted by ImageRemovalBot?==
	==Image==
			Hi. The file LambdaOrionisRing.jpg was removed from article Sh2-264. Although it had the appropriate copyright tag (in my view). It was copied from the Italian version of the article, where it was stated that wikisky had licensed it for use within Misplaced Pages. My mistake probably (but which?). Thx <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 08:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			:] deleted it because it was licensed for use only in Misplaced Pages. Images in Misplaced Pages need to either be licensed under a ] or usable under the ]. --] (]) 01:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
	Hey, I got this message, do you think you could help me?
			==image reinstatement Concetta headshot.jpg==
	"Thanks for uploading Image:GalianoMap.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Misplaced Pages's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
			Wikimedia administrators,
			Copyrights for this image are held by Concetta Antico and with this email she gives permission for use of ] on wiki page Concetta Antico.
			URL for image is
			ConcettaAntico.com
			I make the wiki edit to reinstate use of the file on the wiki page by request of Concetta Antico.
			I send this email by request,giving permission for use of the image by the copyrights holder.
			Neither Use of this image , nor reinstatement of it on the wiki constitute a conflict as I have no financial or legal ties to the page or its contents.
	For more information on using images, see the following pages:
			I will continue my right to edit the page for inaccuracies and omissions.
			I submit this email per request of Concetta Antico as a personal favor.
			] (]) 23:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
	Misplaced Pages:Image use policy
	Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags
	This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 13:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
			== A barnstar for you! ==
	Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Gfrankson""
			{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
	If I recall correctly when I selected "copyright status unknown" it says that an experienced editor can help me figure out what the copyright IS?
			|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ]
	Could I mabye get that help? I am begginer, so the help would be appreciated.
			|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Editor's Barnstar'''
			|-
			|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Nice bot for identify the missing license tag. Good luck. ] (]) 13:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
			|}
			== Question/feature request ==
	Thanks!
			When removing an image can you include who deleted the file? ] (]) 20:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
	--] 21:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
			== W O Saunders Image needing copyright tag ==
	== Orphan fair use backlog ==
			Hello, Have added a copyright tag for this image - I need to be careful to follow protocols - how do I delete the instructions to delete the image? ] (]) 9:29, 23 December 2014
	Hi... I know you can't personally do anything about it right now, but there is a large backlog of which need to be deleted. I've been busy with other projects, so I can't really babysit it right now... so I was wondering if you could go nag people to take care of these. There is also a backlog of that any one could take care of... --] 20:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
			== ImageRemovalBot ==
	:If the toolserver hadn't stopped working, I could have used the list of tagged non-orphans to test out a semi-automated Misplaced Pages interface I'm developing. --] 07:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
			Hello, could you chime in at "Bot edit war" over at ]? One of the bots in question is ImageRemovalBot; I've asked about a change to its instructions, although I'm nowhere near confident that this would be the right course, since it may be working perfectly fine here. ] (]) 22:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
	== Chinese government licences ==
			== warnings! ==
	Hi! Would you be knowing if images published the the government of the ] are in public domain? This is related to an ongoing debate at ] Regards, ] ] 08:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
			Hi,
	:No, but I suspect they aren't. --] 06:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
			Since the 7 July 2014 the bot appears to be having issues and logging mostly warnings and not removing files. Cheers ] (]) 18:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
	==Why is it called Orphanbot?==
			:Thanks. Bot has been un-stuck and should now be working properly. --] (]) 21:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
	Would it not be better to take responsibility for this bot (if it is indeed your brainchild) and call it, say, "Carnildobot"? --] 08:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
	:I believe in naming bots after what they do, not after who owns them. Originally, OrphanBot was designed for one task: orphaning no-source and no-license images so admins could delete them easily. Notifying users and other related tasks have been added since then. --] 18:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
			==ANB discussion==
	I see. Well, one of the things that this bot apparently does, judging from the entries above, is cause widespread irritation, so "Irritatingbot" might be a better name. You certainly seem to have an uphill struggle to win over/educate those wikipedians whose image contributions made in good faith have been affected by it! --] 00:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
			There is a discussion at ] that concerns you because you were recently involved with one or more of the related ], ] (]), ]. Thank you, ] (]) 08:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
			== Please comment on ] ==
	==Removing Images==
			You are being notified because you have participated in previous discussions on the same topic. ] (]) 16:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
			==RM notification==
	I noticed when this bot removed an image from the ] infobox, it also removed the "|" at the end of the line of the infobox code, causing the next line of the infobox to display in non wiki code, just wondering if this is something you can rectify to prevent it doing this to a whole lot of infoboxes. Thanks! ] <sub>]+]</sub> 13:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
			Since you have participated in at least one Requested Move or Move Review discussion, either as participant or closer, regarding the title of the article currently at ], you are being notified that there is another discussion about that going on now, at ]. We hope we can finally achieve consensus among all participating about which title best meets policy and guidelines, and is not too objectionable. --] ] 17:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
	:Actually, if you look at , you'll see that there never was a "|" to begin with. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, though. --] 06:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
	== Coordinate your bots, please ==		== neutral RfC notification ==
			] has a discussion on succession box usage. You had previously noted or opined at ] thanks. ] (]) 17:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
	I've spotted what looks like an unfortunate interaction between ] and ]: see the of ], which should be a perfectly standard fair use album cover. The image was first uploaded with a {{tl|Don't know}} tag, orphaned by OrphanBot, then retagged as {{tl|albumcover}} but then, being still orphaned, tagged as {{tl|or-fu}} by Roomba. I was about to delete it per ] when I noticed something funny was going on. If I'd been slightly less attentive (and with a backlog of about 1600 week-old orphan fair use images, one can't expect too much attention from admins) the image would've been deleted (again).
			== Trinity (nuclear test) ==
	I'm not sure what the best way to avoid such situations would be, but I though I'd bring this to your attention. I'd tentatively suggest that Roomba should not tag images as or-fu if they've been previously orphaned by OrphanBot and now have a valid tag. Of course, it'd also be nice if OrphanBot could watch the images it has orphaned and restore them if a valid tag was provided.
			I have re-nominated ] as a ]. As you participated in the ] as a reviewer, I thought you might want to check that all the points that you made have been addressed. ] (]) 22:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
	(Posted to both ] and ].) —] <small>(])</small> 14:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
			== Talk:CSS Virginia article that you authored in 2004. ==
	==COPYRIGHT BOT???==
			Hello, Carnildo.
	Your bot red flagged some images that I forgot to tag, how do I put a tag on it after I've uploaded them? The two news article scans are copyrighted to Bay Currents Newspaper but are free to use. Please help me. ] 23:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
			My name is Rick Jensen. I was doing some reading and research into the United States' first ironclads when I discovered your article on the Talk page of the CSS Virginia web page.
	:Go to ] and find the appropriate one for the image. To bring up the image description page, click on the image or a link to the image. Click "Edit this page", and replace the existing tag with the new tag. --] 06:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
			I would like to add the start and finish dates for the completion of the reconstruction from the USS Merrimack into the CSS Virginia to the article's web page. However, I do not know where you found your information for your article. So, I am reluctant to change the current page without being able to cite a reference for the dates.
	::Thank you very much! ] 07:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
			Any assistance that you could give me would be greatly appreciated.
	== page move ==
			Thank you for your time and consideration.
	Hey, there was a ] about moving the questions page to ] from ]. Anyway, the page is moved and all the templates are changed, can you change the bot's message whenever you get a chance? The old page is a redirect of course so it's not urgent :) Thanks. - <font style="color:#137300;">]</font><sup><font style="color:#f98c0d;">]</font></sup> 06:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
			Rick J.
	:I just finished updating the messages. --] 06:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
			Portland, Oregon
			<03-FEB-2015>
			] (]) 02:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
			== ImageTaggingBot ==
	==Images==
	Hi, a while ago I uploaded this picture of ], did it wrong and OrphanBot deleted it(rightfully). Thing is, I still don't really get how you figure out what the copyright status of a picture is. It's just so confusing with that huge long list of copyrights. Does that make sense? Can you help?
	] 21:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
			Hey,
	== Hail botmeister ==
			Any chance you could set up some form of automatic archiving on the bot's talk page - it is really too long to navigate. If not, I may consider doing so, as it is far too long for me to read through to find if my issue has been reported (Tagging files with a valid non-free use rational with missing data). Thanks, ] (]) 10:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
	Any chance of your bot removing 'fair use' images from templates and userspace and posting explanations on talk pages? --] ] 21:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
			== ImageTaggingBot bug? ==
	:If you can point me to a list of such images to work from. ] contains upwards of 150,000 images, and most of them aren't a problem. It would take the bot over two weeks to simply go through the category and check each image individually, and I don't have enough free disk space on my computer to host a full mirror of the English Misplaced Pages.
			The bot tagged (twice) a I uploaded (a college crest) as having no licensing data, although I have given it a Non-free use rationale logo template for its licensing. Is there a bug with the bot or did I do somoething wrong? ] <sup>]</sup> 13:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
	:The bot can turn inlined images on talk pages into image links, and remove images from user pages and category descriptions. It can't remove images from templates, because doing so will often break template formatting.
			:{{ping|Hansi667}} . You should include a general "copyrighted" tag as well now. ] (]) 17:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
	:This work would be done under the ] account. --] 22:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)		:The {{tl|Non-free use rationale}} family of templates aren't considered copyright tags. You need to include a suitable template from ] as well. --] (]) 21:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
			== YGM ==
			{{YGM}} Hi there. I am contacting you because you are mentioned in an article I am writing. I have sent you an email about it. As the article is likely to garner a great deal of attention, please can you give the email your most urgent attention? ] (]) 20:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
	== ] expansion ==
	That idea sounds vaguely familiar. In any case, I suspect that it may turn into something that needs a top-down push, but we'll see. ] 02:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
			== ImageRemovalBot not working? ==
	:I brought it up earlier, but it got lost in a fight over speedy-deletion of userboxes. --] 02:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
			Hi, I just noticed a lot more images than normal building up in ] and check the bots and its showing "Logging warning message" > "*Previous run is taking longer than normal" - looks like it may need a kick. Cheers ] (]) 20:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
	== Fair use bot ==
			:Bot has been kicked. It should catch up over the course of the day. --] (]) 21:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
	I have a complaint! ... It didn't remove enough. ;)
			:* Cheers ] (]) 22:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
	on ] it was also linked from template ]. I removed it by hand, but it left me wondering if it was a feature or a bug that it wasn't removed by the bot. --] 02:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
	:The bot doesn't touch templates because they're too easy to mess up. Instead, it logs a note on its talk page so I can remove the image by hand. --] 03:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
			== Removal of two images in the "Skaggs Family" ==
	== J2000 and Julian Dates ==
	Regarding your edit to ], the epoch is with respect to a given Julian date. Is this not thus related to the Julian calendar? Not an expert (just play one at work), so thought I'd ask before reverting. Thanks! ] 02:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
			I don't know why you removed the two images that you did, one that pictured the first Skaggs-Safeway name and its first president, MB Skaggs, and one of a picture of both MB and his wife. I received written permission to use both of those images without restriction so, unless I failed to tag the images correctly, they SHOULDN'T have been deleted. The first one is the ONLY image showing that Safeway Stores began as Skaggs-Safeway, a very important point in the history! I can't now find the images because you have deleted them. Please tell me why! Thanks, Don Nielson <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:] and ] are two different things. The only relation between the two besides the name is that the ] was used to define the zero point for Julian dates. --] 03:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
	== Barnstar ==		== FairuseBot not working? ==
			Hi. I am a ] member. ] seems to have stopped editing since 2011. Why is that? -- ] (]) 11:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
	], I ] give you the editor's barnstar. ] ] 05:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)]]
			: A bug in how MediaWiki handles image redirects caused the bot to stop working properly, and I haven't gotten around to fixing it. --] (]) 19:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
	==Image Red-Flagged==
			== ] ==
	Why did you red-flag my image? I took the picture and uploaded it myself and changed the tag so that it readL May Use for NON-COMMERCIAL USE--I don't see why that calls for a speedy deletion. Ever since your bot red-flagged my first image, all my pages and images are getting looked at. This is pretty discouraging. ] 06:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
			Are you sure that the redirect is useful? ] (]) 07:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
	:Wow, you RED-FLAGGED every single one of my original photographs! Misplaced Pages is really the wrong thing for me I'm thinking. I came here to share information and images with the world and this is how I'm treated. ] 07:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
			:Yes, because that's what I typed in to my browser's search bar to try to find the article. --] (]) 08:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
	::Misplaced Pages is a ] encyclopedia. This means that anyone can re-use the content for whatever they want, so long as they follow the terms of the GFDL. Permitting commercial use is part of this: among other things, it allows answers.com to integrate Misplaced Pages content with their knowlegebase, and it allows the German Misplaced Pages to raise funds by selling CDs with the encyclopedia on them.
	::And it's not just you that's getting a close look. I'm hoping that every one of the 450,000 or so images will be checked out in the near future: many of them shouldn't have been uploaded in the first place. --] 07:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
			== ImageTaggingBot parsing ==
	::: Please note that images currently in use in wikiarticles should not be speedied. Please try again at ]. Or simply re-tag the images with sth more acceptable. -- ] 08:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
			I was amused (albeit also concerned) to see {{u|ImageTaggingBot}} put {{tlx|untagged}} on , when there is a declaration of CC-BY-SA 2.0 two lines above it. I copy and pasted the copyright status into the wizard from the original file on Commons (this is a crop of the original for a close-up in an article). I assume the bot isn't designed to parse text in this manner? ] ] ] 14:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
	::::There's no such policy. But since you insist, I've listed all five on IFD. --] 08:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
			:Correct, the bot can't parse free-form text. {{tl|untagged}} used to be a template that indicated just that -- "none of the templates on this page is a copyright tag, but there's some free-form text that I think might be a license" -- but about three years ago someone decided to merge it with {{tl|di-no license}}. --] (]) 23:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
	::::: It's not a policy. But we should not be creating broken links in wikiarticles by speedying any images. Why not ask the photographer and uploader to re-tag ? Don't forget to add "<nowiki>{{</nowiki>subst:Idw|" to the uploader's talkpage, as per instructions on {{tl|ifd}}. -- ] 09:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
			== File removal ==
	::::::So remove the images from articles before you click the "delete" button. It can't be that hard, can it? --] 17:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
			Hi, in some cases your bot hides images with the message "Deleted image removed:", any special reason why they are not outright deleted from the articles? ] (]) 21:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
	::::::: Carnildo, it's not about easy or hard. It's as easy as following all three steps listed in the ifd template. While ] says ''"Please remove images from any pages they are used in before marking them for speedy deletion."'', there's more to just avoiding broken links in articles. I would remove the images from articles if the problems were copyvio or vandalism. But I'm certainly not doing that when the uploader is an active contributor in Misplaced Pages, certainly not without consultation, when the images can simply be re-tagged. I, too, have the same goal of getting an absolutely free Misplaced Pages (eventually), but I am not going to help one colleague and offend another colleague by simply doing the easy thing. Also, deleted images are lost from the wikiserver permanently and cannot be undeleted. Quality of the images in question aside, I'd rather not delete any useful images till I have to (or till better images are available). -- ] 20:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::: Just found out that those images have been re-tagged "Copyrighted, but No rights reserved" by the uploader. Is this good enough for you ? -- ] 00:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::::Fine with me. --] 03:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
			:Many, many years ago, when the bot was first approved, consensus was that it should comment the images out rather than deleting them entirely. There have been a few efforts to change that since then, but none has managed to gain consensus. --] (]) 00:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
	== Old photographs and Art images ==
			== ImageRemovalBot stopped? ==
	I know the work you're doing has to be done, and ''almost'' all of it deals with images that really have to go. '''''But''''' I find a smattering of pre-1923 photographs and artwork that was painted by artists who have been dead 50 or more years, that is only lacking a source (and sometimes has been mistagged). I have had a fair amount of success finding sources for such work, and restoring them to their articles. It would be easier to do ''before'' your bot does its thing than after, though, so if you notice that you're dealing with such images, could you leave me a note and give me a day or two before you pull the trigger and let me see if I can save us both some trouble? TIA, -- ] | ] 00:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
	:If I see any, I'll let you know. However, the bot's work is almost entirely automated, and I don't look at more than a couple percent of the images it deals with. You'd have better luck talking to the people who do most of the tagging, such as at ]. --] 02:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
	::OK, that makes sense. Thanks, -- ] | ] 02:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
			Hi again, just come across a lot of images deleted today that didn't get removed by ImageRemovalBot - checked it's contribs and it's not done anything since yesterday morning. Just thought I'd let you know. Cheers ] (]) 19:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
	== Snail image ==
			:Power outage took down the computer running the bot. I'm taking the opportunity to do some hardware maintenance, and the bot should be up and working its way through the backlog by tomorrow. --] (]) 23:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
	Reason: upload should have been to commons, where said template exists. Thanks for pointing this out to me. ] 01:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
			:: Cheers ] (]) 19:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
			== MOS:IDENTITY is being revisited: How should Misplaced Pages refer to transgender individuals before and after their transition? ==
	== I believe your bot made an honest mistake in removing 20 images ==
			You are being contacted because you contributed to a ] of MOS:IDENTITY that closed with the recommendation that Misplaced Pages's policy on transgender individuals be revisited.
	Hello,
			Two threads have been opened at the Village Pump:Policy. ] addresses how the Manual of Style should instruct editors to refer to transgender people in articles about themselves (which name, which pronoun, etc.). ] addresses how to instruct editors to refer to transgender people when they are mentioned in passing in other articles. Your participation is welcome. ] (]) 02:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
	I just reviewed the wikipedia article I have written at length at http://en.wikipedia.org/Aranycsapat, and to my suprise I found 20 very legal images removed from the article. As I might have stated before, I do not know if there was a copyright issue with those images or not but I listed the urls from where they came and that is what I believed wikipedia required. As a second comment, I've have never had those images removed before and they were posted for much longer than that the 7 prohabitionary days, all those images were there for months before you decided to remove them. Please kindly resubmit them as I believe honestly that you're orphan image removing bot made an honest mistake. Please contact me if you need further details on where I downloaded those images. Thank you.
			== More bot things ==
	user: ]
			I must be going crazy. What's going on ? — ] <sup>'']''</sup> 10:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
	:It looks fine to me. Misplaced Pages requires two things for an image to be used: the source information, and an indication of the copyright status. Images on Misplaced Pages must be licensed under a free license by the creator/copyright holder, or in the public domain, or usable under the doctrine of ]. I don't speak Dutch, but a Babelfish translation of doesn't lead me to believe that the images from that website are in the public domain or under any sort of free license, and I don't think any of them qualify for fair use. Also, lack of a copyright statement does not mean that an image is not copyrighted. --] 06:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
			:There's nothing on that image description page that the bot recognizes as a source. You should provide either a "source" or "owner" parameter for {{tl|Non-free use rationale title-card}}. The bot doesn't consider the default value to be acceptable source information, because it usually isn't. --] (]) 20:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
	::Yeah. New users should follow the directions. As part of my involvement with the Misplaced Pages Welcoming Committee, I'll be soon coming up with a message for new user's who have problems with their images being deleted. --] 16:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
			::Ah, the owner, that's what I was forgetting. Thanks, fixed now. I'm a little frustrated since {{tl|Non-free use rationale title-card}} doesn't have any documentation and the template wasn't indicating there was a missing field. Cheers. — ] <sup>'']''</sup> 00:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
	== Tupac Shakur ==
			== WW discussion ==
	I updated the featured article candidate ], to reflect yours and other reviewers' feedback. Thank you.] 17:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
			In case you're interested, we're discussing your 100 random article analysis here in the Facebook group. Cool stuff. -- ] &#124; ] 16:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
	== posssible OrphanBot bug ==
			== November 2015 ==
	It looks like OrphanBot removes images linked to in comments, resulting in nested comments. See this diff for an example. ] 07:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
			Hello Carnildo. You tagged an image for deletion, but you did not notify the uploader that it had been so tagged. There is strong consensus that the uploaders of images tagged for deletion should be notified and that the person placing the tag has that responsibility. Part 3 of the instructions at FfD contain a pre-formatted warning for this purpose—just copy and paste to the uploader's talk page. The image in question was Thank you. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 12px #ceff00, -4px -4px 12px #ceff00;">]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]&#124;&nbsp;]&nbsp;</span> 23:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
	:Thanks. I've modified the bot to spot that sort of thing. --] 21:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
			==Image modification request==
	== AFD ==
			I see you created ] by modifying the text of a similar graphic. I would like to use a variation of this on the Maori wikipedia but with the text translated. I know little about graphics and have never tried to edit an animated GIF, and there doesn't appear to be a regular editor on mi with such skills.
			If you don't have time or inclination to help, I entirely understand. This is not urgent. I can ask at ] if you can't do it.
	Hi, you may remember that you voted to delete ] but the AFD failed, well the list has grown even more and is now completely unmanageable, so I have ] - just thought I'd let you know. ] 15:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
			The changes I would like are:
	== Orphanbot ==
			*The text "7 continents", "6 continents" etc should read "7 paparahi" etc.
			*The continent names are "Amerika" (America), "Ūropi" (Europe), "Āwherika" (Africa), "Āhia" (Asia), "Tiri o Te Moana" (Antarctica), "Ao-o-Kiwa" (Oceania, which we would prefer to Australia), "Amerika ki te Raki" (North America), "Amerika ki te Tonga" (South America), "Eurāhia" (Eurasia) and "Āwhe-Eurāhia" (Africa-Eurasia).
			The parts in brackets are for your understanding, not to be included in the image. The macrons (lines above some vowels) are important.
	You have a funny ], but I think it is a good thing. ^_^ Waikiki!!! --] 16:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
			Please upload the new version to ] as the Maori Misplaced Pages has a policy of not storing image files itself.
	:Hi. Did break Orphanbot's search string matching? I tried to accomodate Orphanbot in the change. ] 05:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
			If you are interested in the discussion which prompted this request, you can see it at ].
	::Nope. The important parts of the tag didn't change, and none of the added bits will confuse it. --] 06:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
			Thanks in advance.-<span style="font-family:cursive; color:grey;">]</span> 01:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
	:::There is some discussion at ] where your input would be helpful, at the very least to answer the practical question of whether or not a bot could be run to orphan images with no rationale and use that as the method for bringing those images back into our cleanup processes. Thanks. ] 16:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
			== ImageRemovalBot and image templates ==
	== Heya... FairuseBot has removed my image from ]! ==
			Just FYI, ] {{Diff|Situation awareness|684670651|680288184|did quite a number}} on ] by removing image "links" within {{Tl|Plain image with caption}} templates. Perhaps you could program the bot to remove the entire template in those cases, instead of leaving a bunch of stray syntax behind. Thanks. –&nbsp;<kbd>]]</kbd> 23:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
	Why is that? It has a valid fair use rationale, and it's not going to be deleted. - ] 07:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
			:I'll look into it. --] (]) 22:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
	:The image was tagged as {{tl|fair use disputed}}, and there hadn't been any discussion for over a week. If you think it's fair use, put it back and untag it -- FairuseBot will never remove the same image twice (or if it does, it's a bug). --] 08:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
	:Cheers, I wondered how it worked... good idea! - ] 08:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
			== ] ==
	== FairuseBot made a mistake: Image:Musashimaru.jpg ==
			Hi,<br>
	FairUseBot needs tweaking: going from your above comments, it will remove an image with {{tl|fair use disputed}} if there's been no discussion for a week. That incorrectly implies that the disputing side has won the discussion. On the above image (which was on my watchlist in case there was more discussion), the last word was mine on the talk page (since the orignal rationale wasn't too strong, legally it's not a strong argument; the person who tagged the photo didn't think strong enough to break the original links) --although to be fair I left it open, since I figured it would be rude to just take down the {{tl|fair use disputed}} and be a jerk. However, now with FairUseBot on the prowl and making the assumption that any discussion that's not gone on for a week is somehow "won" by the original tagger. This is like the Napoleanic Code. Is there a way to tweak this so it at least sees that there's discussion on a talk page? In cases like this, where there is ''dispute'', I would assume a human should make a judgement. Although letting FairUseBot run willy-nilly on tagged and undisputed items, in turn, is flawed because it assumes that (1) the person who tagged it was correct and (2) people click on all photos in articles to check. ] 16:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
			You appear to be eligible to vote in the current ]. The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages ]. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to ] and submit your choices on ]. For the Election committee, ] (]) 22:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
	:Also, in Image:Uday and double.jpg, the edit history shows the person who tagged it never gave reason for why he took one tag and split it into the two he/she decided to split it into. That image is a very strong candidate for fair use, but it appears the user who added the two tags was just trying to be safe and probably didn't know that it could get auto-deleted by FairUseBot (otherwise there would've been a rational on the talk page or wherever). ] 16:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
			<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=693174033 -->
	== Is it safe to edit? ==		== Hello ==
	For the whole scandal, see http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=331
			Assalam O Alaikum
	:Thank you, but no. I prefer to get my information from ]. --] 21:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
			Respected Sir, An Administrator Block Me From Editing Pages Please Can You Help Me In Unblocking? H.R.H Prince Muhammad Zahid Zadran 08:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	== Orphanbot & optipng ==		== Migrated image bug ==
			Hi, removed an image from the ] page after it had been migrated to Commons. Is this intentional behaviour? If you're running the bot without supervision, it could detract from a number of articles in the same situation. Cheers, ] (]/]) 12:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
	Hello, I use to optimize ever png file I stumble upon. I use ], reducing the size of the file without any loss in quality (saving bandwith and loading time) and leave the comment ''optimized using optipng.''… Now what bugs me is that I'm confronted with entries to my talk page like '''Image Tagging for ]''', '''Image Tagging for ]''', etc… Although I'm obviously not the creator of the file and have no idea where it comes from. Couldn't you please (make the bot) add the entries to the talk page of the liable user instead? --] 09:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
	:It's probably best in general for the bot to notify everyone who has contributed to the image, especially since I can't think of any simple way for the bot to tell "trivial" changes like yours from more substantial ones. That said, I'd expect the bot has (or could be made to have) a "whitelist" of users that do not need to be notified. —] <small>(])</small> 10:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)		:The problem is that the image was renamed in the process of moving it to Commons -- the bot cannot magically divine that ] and ] are the same image, particularly after the former has been deleted. It's the job of the user doing the migration to update the links. --] (]) 02:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
			== source code of ImageRemovalBot ==
	::Is it any helpful (in telling the difference between trivial and substantial changes) that the descriptions of the optimized images I upload are always the same (''optimized using optipng''.)? Because a whitelist sounds like an overkill to me - Orphanbot has notified me of missing tags for which I was responsible in the past, since I do also create images myself… --] 11:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
			Hello!
	:::Very much so. OrphanBot already detects reverts, and won't notify the reverting user, or the user who uploaded the now-reverted version. I can add your edit summary to the list of things that it doesn't count as uploads when figuring out the most recent uploader. --] 18:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
			Is the source code of the bot somehow available? Or is it possible to run it in other wikipedias?
	::::I've updated the bot to recognize "optimized using optipng" and "optimized using PNGCrusher" as meaning the uploader isn't uploading a new image. Tell me if it isn't working. --] 08:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
			Some time before I operated a bot in ru.wikipedia that image transclusions in the articles and the bot was based on CommonsDelinker system. But now everything changed and framework stopped working - as a result we have ~3k of deleted but not unlinked files: ]. So, is it somehow possible to use your bot in ru.wiki? ] (]) 14:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
	:::::Thanks a million. --] 11:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
			:The source code is available at ]; you'll also need the support libraries at ], ], and ]. If you have any questions, leave me a message. --] (]) 04:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
	::::::Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to work: <strike>]</strike> // <strike>]</strike> --] 18:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
			== Deletion of William J Brennan detail ==
	:::::::Found and fixed the bug: OrphanBot had eliminated all uploaders as being the "original" uploader, so it defaulted to notifying the most recent one. Thanks for reporting it. --] 21:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
			This is a cropped (by me) detail from an existing Misplaced Pages file, as you can verify by comparing it with the larger Misplaced Pages file: ] - Please revert your delete. ] (]) 17:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
	::::::::Well, it happened again… <strike>]</strike> // ] --] 15:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::::Human error this time. OrphanBot's new-upload tagging runs on a different computer than the existing-image routine, and I'd forgotten to copy the updated code over. --] 18:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
			:What image are you referring to? ImageRemovalBot has handled hundreds of thousands of images over the course of the past decade. --] (]) 01:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
	::::::::::There's still something wrong, apparently --] 13:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::::::<cough>] ] </cough> --] 17:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::::::::::I'll get it right one of these days :-) The problem is that OrphanBot uses a different technique for figuring out who to notify for new uploads than it does for older images. --] 20:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
			::The image is ]
	==Orphanbot request==
			::] (]) 01:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
	] has uploaded a number of photos labeled as from www.semg.org and www.semg.org.uk, usually using {{tl|norightsreserved}}. All of these images are from www.semg.org.uk who have not released any rights to the images. If possible I would appreciate it if you could tag all of them apropriately as I am not certain how or where to list images with wrong licenses.
			:::That file quite clearly still exists. Which is the deleted image? --] (]) 02:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
	Cheers, ] 20:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
	:I've just noticed that he has also uploded photos from http://www.havant.gov.uk, which are all copyright to them unless explicitly stated. As you understand image licensing please could you have a look at all his images and tag as necessary. Thanks. ] 20:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
			::::Your bot deleted the detail of that file that I had made and put in ]. The detail showed Brennan's head and shoulders without the rest of the body. ] (]) 15:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
	== Approvals group ==
			:::::I'm guessing you're talking about ]. In that case, it was deleted by ] for lacking source information, and the bot merely removed the link to it from the article. Your best bet is to talk to Explicit about the deletion. --] (]) 20:27, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
	Just wanted to let you know that I have removed references to the approvals group from both the main bots page and the approvals page. See ] for my reasoning. <small>]</small><sup>] | ] | ]</sup> ---- 00:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
			== ] ==
			Your bot posted a warning about missing source and copyright information to this talk page but forgot to include the file name. Any idea why? If it was about ] and if you used some template with an unnamed (numbered) parameter, then note that you need to need to include the number when the file name contains an = sign. --] (]) 10:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
	==License tagging for Image:2001lunarbay.jpg==
	Thanks for uploading ]. Misplaced Pages gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Misplaced Pages, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an ] applied to the ] indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
			:Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I've fixed the bot. --] (]) 00:04, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
	For more information on using images, see the following pages:
	*]
	*]
			== ImageTaggingBot ==
	This is an automated notice by ]. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at ]. 00:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
			It seems there is a bug with ImageTaggingBot since it tagged ] as without any sources ''twice'' while there is really a source given for the image (which is VIVA Film through IMDb)] (]) 12:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
			:I thought I'd finally seen the last of that damned navbox. Guess not.
	:Sorry. My mistake. Missed taging that one somehow. fixed it. Thanks. -- ] 01:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
			:The problem is that the source information is not in a computer-readable format. It's hidden inside a {{tl|navbox}} template, which ImageTaggingBot quite reasonably ignores as being irrelevant to understanding the image description page. If you want the bot to stop tagging the page, use a machine-readable template such as {{tl|non-free media data}} or {{tl|non-free use rationale}}. --] (]) 20:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
	Hello,
			== Blanshard.gif ==
	Thank you Carnildo. You just stripped my article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/Aranycsapat ) of all its images. Some of those old photographs no longer have licenses as the photographer may have passed and there is no way of knowing. Secondly, I supplied all the images contained in the article the urls and source information but still you removed all. I've have never had those images removed before and they were posted for much longer than that the 7 prohabitionary days. The vast majority of those images therefore were there for 5 to 6 months before you decided to remove them! Please kindly resubmit them as soon as you can, or if that is not possible then reply back to me so we can move to remove the entire article altogether if this is what wikipedia is all about. Thank you.
			Hello Carnildo. ImageRemovalBot removed to ] on the 18th, a few hours after it was nominated for speedy deletion. However, I declined the speedy deletion a few days later so it could be discussed and the file was never actually deleted (yet?). Shouldn't the bot wait until the file is deleted rather than nominated? ]<span style="background-color:white; color:#808080;">&amp;</span>] 20:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
	user: Gallopingmajor
			: {{nao}} The file was deleted by one admin on 18 May and then undeleted by another admin on 19 May. ] later removed the CSD template on 22 May. The file was removed from the article shortly after its deletion on 18 May, so the bot does not seem to have made any error. --] (]) 20:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
			::Huh, I had missed that and in two discussions nobody mentioned it! Thanks. So much fuss over one old photo. ]<span style="background-color:white; color:#808080;">&amp;</span>] 20:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
			:It's not possible for the bot to remove an image before it's deleted: the bot gets its worklist off the deletion log. --] (]) 01:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
	== Question about... ==
	Hello. You tagged the article ] as lacking sources. I was wondering what on that page would you say needs a source, because appearances in bands are quite obvious. And do keep in mind that this is pretty much unsourcable considering where he comes from, and that he doesn't have an official website. Thank you! ] 20:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
	:The whole thing needs referencing. Right now, there's no way to tell if the article is true, or if it's simply something that a couple of bored middle-school students made up during lunch. See ] for Misplaced Pages's policy on this. --] 21:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
			==Help needed==
	::I can find a couple of references and throw out the Star Wars thing and then you can take a look at it. It's not a launch break joke... Refernces coming soon. Thanks! ] 21:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
			Hi , i see u control a bot. If possible can u programme a bot for me since i dont know programmming. The bot can inform uploaders that their data needs citation Please I'd be very grateful if u help me thanks and Regards -] (]) 08:45, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
	:::Ok. This is THE BEST I can do. And you really have to understand that there is no way to verify this information any better than this. Anybody who listens to this bands is going to say "Yeah, it's true. He's the man!". I know it doesn't go like that but... Besides the name found on a couple of websites....(I don't have original cd's so I cannot say under what name he is credited). ]! Bye. ] 22:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
			== Photo used at a website..... ==
	::::It's better than nothing. At least now there's evidence that he exists, and that he's involved in at least some of the bands he's claimed to have been part of. --] 22:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
			Carnildo,
	:::::Just to bother you a little more, since there is mainly mentions of his name in the bands with no real reference, there are some links I added to ] page. Through them it can be veryfied that Nagash, Lex Icon is a member of those bands. Thank you for your patience! This message will not self destruct in one billion years! ] 23:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
			I did a TinEye search on the falls photo at: and was directed to your Wikimedia upload .
	== preventing OrphanBot notification ==
			I was considering applying for a job that's open at this company but, if they're using Wiki work on their company website, I'm not interested in dealing with the type of corporate culture that's OK with that kind of BS......
	Hi Carnildo. How does OrphanBot determine whether a user has been notified about a particular image? Often I write personalized messages to uploaders with numerous problem uploads, and would like to avoid them being overshadowed by redundant warnings. Is including a link to an image in an ad-hoc message enough to prevent subsequent warnings, or does one of the subst'd templates have to be present? Best regards. '''''×'''''] 05:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
			Long story short: are you in someway connected with this company/website: is this a kosher use of your work or are they pulling something skeezy?
	:I thought of this back when I was first designing OrphanBot's notification system. A simple link to the image will work, as will a non-link mention (ie, both ] and Image:Example.gif will be seen as being notifications). --] 05:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
			Thank you,
	== Space Patrol image ==
			Brian
			] (]) 02:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
	I recently added an image to ] - I had found it on the Space Patrol entry on the Gaelic version of Misplaced Pages, so assumed that you(Misplaced Pages) were happy with the copyright there. However your autobot thing seems to have taking it and removed it - if you want I can copy all the Gaelic stuff across but will that be OK to allow the image to stay or does autobot not speak Gaelic. I had hoped that after its flagging a human would contact me so that I could ask (which has happened before).
			:I've got no connection to the company or their website. If they can't even manage to follow a simple "give credit to the photographer" license, you're probably well-served to stay away from them. --] (]) 06:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
	==Najeeb Halaby Image==
	If possible, please see the relevant discussion between ] and myself on our respective User Talk pages regarding the copyright status of the photo used in the ] article prior to having it deleted by OrphanBot. --] 09:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
			==What now?==
	== Minor Orphanbot issue ==
			So what licence do I add for this image, File:Lydia Ko - 27067658976 A.jpg, which is simply an improved version of an existing image with full licence details? Buggered if I can see what licence to use. ] (]) 03:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
	<s>Orphanbot told me I had uploaded an untagged image, ]. All I did was upload an optimised version over the original. I did not specify a tag as the image page retains the current info.--] <small>(])</small> 12:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)</s>		:Since the original is licensed {{tl|cc-by-sa-2.0}}, that's the license you need to use on your derivative as well. The license also requires you to acknowledge the original author (Flickr user Keith Allison). --] (]) 10:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
			::Never mind. Just replace my improved version with the inferior version. ] (]) 21:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
	:Nevermind, I just noticed the relevant discussion above. By the way, I use a similar message on optimisation uploads, but I use the string "Optimised with OptiPNG.". Will Orphanbot accept the alternate capitalisation (and the habitual period)?--] <small>(])</small> 12:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
	::I just noticed Orphanbot restored the "no license" tag, which I removed (as there is obviously a license). I won't remove it a second time, as the same will likely happen again.--] <small>(])</small> 14:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
	:::Thanks for bringing this to my attention. There was a bug where, if OrphanBot found page with a tag (like {{tl|NowCommonsThis}}) that it knows doesn't specify anything about copyright, and another tag that it doesn't know anything about, it would tag the image as "no license" rather than reporting the unknown tag to me. I've fixed the bug.
			== ] ==
	:::OrphanBot now accepts other capitalizations for "optimized by", but when you posted, it didn't. --] 18:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
			The ImageTaggingBot tagged this as no source. While technically true, a FUR does not require a source per the template. The template automatically fills in the source field with "The poster art can or could be obtained from the distributor." if it is not included. I went back and added a link but it seems a little unnecessary to tag an image for deletion when the template autofills in that information in compliance with non-free use requirements. --] (]) 22:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
	==Image Tagging for ]==
	The image was created in black (with white background) by user Zikander under the GNU license.
	Apparently some admin have deleted the original page (I can't see it in ). I've just coloured and re-uploaded the image under the same license. See also ]. <small>]</small> ] 13:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
			:"Can be obtained from the distributor" is rather vague, which is why the bot doesn't consider it a source -- if you're going to go with the default there, you really should specify who the distributor is. Ideally, both the "owner" and "source" fields would be filled out, so we have a record of both who the copyright owner is and where the image came from, but the bot will accept a template where any of "owner", "source", "publisher", "distributor", or "website" fields is used. --] (]) 22:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
	I must also add that I would really like to know why Zikander and me aren't shown as the creators of that image, according to the ] (I still guess that some admin has something to do with it but I can't find out what happened). <small>]</small> ] 13:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
			== ImageRemovalBot down? ==
	:Thanks for clarifying that. The image is currently stored on Wikimedia Commons (), so you should update the image description page there to include this information. --] 18:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
			Hi ] is ImageRemovalBot down? I notice a few more files than normal building up in ] that it would normally have removed and I notice it hasn't edited for about a day now. Cheers ] (]) 13:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
	::Thank you very much for your reply. The problem is that I don't remember what was written in the description and when Zikander created it (perhaps I could give a guess of when I've modified it). Can you see (as an admin) the deleted version of the image at en:WP? <small>]</small> ] 10:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
			:Bot has been poked and should work its way through the backlog in the next few hours. --] (]) 20:37, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
	== Template:MEP image (EP) ==
			:* Cheers ] ] (]) 20:39, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
			== Nomination for deletion of Template:Cc-by-sa-2.0-be ==
			]] has been ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 06:31, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
			== ]: Voting now open! ==
	You edited this recently, "emphasizing the non-free status", and seem to be one of the resident experts on image copyright in general, so I hope it's all right to ask you this. Where on does it say that modification is not permitted?
	It seems to say
	"Copyright notice © European Communities, 1995-2005
	Reproduction is authorised, provided the source is acknowledged,
	save where otherwise stated.
	Where prior permission must be obtained for the reproduction or
	use of textual and multimedia information (sound, images, software, etc.),
	such permission shall cancel the above-mentioned general permission
	and shall clearly indicate any restrictions on use. "
	I don't read anything about modification on there, and frankly, that seems close to a free use license.
	] 18:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
			{{Ivmbox|Hello, Carnildo. Voting in the ''']''' is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
	:There are three things needed for a license to be considered "free":
	:# It needs to permit distribution
	:# It needs to permit modification and incorporation into larger works (the creation of derivative works)
	:# It needs to permit distibution of derivative works
	:This license permits #1, but does not permit #2 (which is what permits using the image in a Misplaced Pages article), and does not permit #3 (which is what permits us to distribute Misplaced Pages, and what permits people to re-use Misplaced Pages content). --] 20:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
			The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
	:: Thanks, but I still don't see where it forbids modification, it just doesn't mention it. If we had to choose, since it specifically says "reproduction", not just "distribution", I would think it would allow modification, since most reproductions do inevitably modify the product and incorporate it in another context. Does such a license need to ''explicitly'' allow modification? ] 21:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
			If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review ] and submit your choices on ''']'''. ] (]) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
	:::The basic copyright statement (ie, "Copyright 2004 Joe Bloggs") forbids everything except a few specific uses: giving away the one copy you have, and certain limited forms of copying as permitted under ] or ]. Any license is a modification on that to permit specific additional things, such as copying for educational purposes, or incorporation into larger works. Since the license does not say anything about modification or derivative works, those are forbidden. --] 21:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
			|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}
			<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52 bot@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52_bot/spamlist/3&oldid=750539315 -->
			== ]: Voting now open! ==
	Thanks for your explanation. However, I've been looking at the , which, I thought we were encouraged to use, and, frankly, it doesn't say "modification" either. It says "derivative works", but not "modification". So is modification not required after all, or is the Creative Commons license not allowed here any more?
	-- ] 15:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
			{{Ivmbox|Hello, Carnildo. Voting in the ''']''' is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
	:"Make a ]" is a legal term meaning "modify" or "create a work using parts of this work". --] 17:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
	: Thanks again. I sent an inquiry to the EP site, hopefully they will say that making a derivative work is allowed (though I don't know how long they will take to respond). If they say no, and if your MEP/EP deletion proposal goes through, I think we will need to tag each and every one of those images "fair use". Members of the European Parliament are clearly notable, and pictures of them are clearly important to their articles. ] 17:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
			The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
	== User:Drumguy8800 image tag ==
			If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review ] and submit your choices on ''']'''. ] (]) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
	Hello, you seem to be quite wise in this department. Is there something, like the copyleft thing, or full blown copyright with usage rights, that I could use instead? For now, I've switched the wording to 'please' instead of 'you must'..
			|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}
			<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52 bot@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52_bot/spamlist/3&oldid=750539315 -->
			== Your inactive bot(s) ==
	by the way, thanks for all your work in this department. ]]</font><font color="navy" face="verdana" style="font-size: 7pt;"> - ]</font> 21:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
			Hello Carnildo. We currently show that you are the operator on file for at least one <code>bot</code> account that appears to be inactive. Please see the discussion and list of bots here: ]. If you are no longer operating your bot, no action is required - your bot will be marked as retired and have the bot flag removed. Should your bot be retired and you wish to revive it in the future, please request bot authorization at ]. If you are still in control of your bot (including knowing its hopefully strong password) and wish to maintain the bot flag, please sign the table on the linked discussion. Thank you, — ] <sup>]</sup> 14:42, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
	:Misplaced Pages requires that user-created images be under a free license: one that permits unrestricted reproduction and modification. However, there is a way around this.
			== Request for Comments on use of certain files not copyrighted in the US ==
	:If you want to restrict who can use your images, your best bet is to license them under the GFDL, with an offer to let people use them under other license terms if they ask.
			Hello,
	:The GFDL is a very awkward license for images. It was designed around the needs of the ] user manual, and requires that the full text of the license be included anywhere that material under the license is published, and that any work containing GFDL material be licensed under the GFDL. This isn't a problem for things as large as websites and books, but it's not practical for smaller things such as posters and magazine articles, and for-profit companies usually don't want to publish their work under anything but simple copyright.
			There is ''']''' about the use of files on Misplaced Pages that are not protected by copyright in the US because there is no copyright relations between the US and the country of publication. You commented in ] that resulted in no consensus. You are invited to share your views in the ongoing discussion. ] (]) 21:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
	:So, by licensing under the GFDL, you let the images be used on Misplaced Pages and related projects (such as Wikibooks or Misplaced Pages Commons), on Misplaced Pages re-users such as Answers.com, and on other GFDL-licensed websites. At the same time, you make it difficult to use the image in printed works and in commercial projects, giving you some control over who re-uses your images.
	:Suggested wording for your template:		== Image source prefilled in FUR template ==
			Hello, could you please explain ? I converted this incorrectly marked free file into a non-free file with {{tl|Non-free use rationale poster}}, which pre-fills a source, yet the bot tagged it with the DI version of no source. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;•&nbsp;]) 16:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
	<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #FFFFFF; border:2px solid green;margin:0.5em auto;width:70%;text-align: center;">
	<font style="font-size: 130%">This photograph is the work of ''']'''</font>
	<br>''']''' | ''''''
			:I should probably add this to a FAQ or something. Basically, "Can be obtained from the distributor" is rather vague, which is why the bot doesn't consider it a source -- if you're going to go with the default there, you really should specify who the distributor is. Ideally, both the "owner" and "source" fields would be filled out, so we have a record of both who the copyright owner is and where the image came from, but the bot will accept a template where any of "owner", "source", "publisher", "distributor", or "website" fields is used. --] (]) 02:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
	<div style="padding-left: 20px; padding-right: 20px; padding-bottom:15px; text-align: center;"><div style='text-align: left;'><div style="float:left; padding: 5px;" id="imageLicenseIcon">]</div>
			::Got it. It might not be a bad idea to start a discussion somewhere more visible about the various non-free rationale templates that do that (logo, etc). &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;•&nbsp;]) 03:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
	<font style="font-size: 80%">Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the ''']''', Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts<br/>Subject to ].</font>
	</div>
	</div>
			== ImageRemovalBot ==
	If you want to use this image under other license terms, ], and we can work something out.
	</div>
			Hi, it appears ImageRemovalBot has stopped working. I noticed a build up at ] and checked its contributions page and it not removing any images and logging "Previous run is taking longer than normal". Cheers ] (]) 11:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
	:--] 20:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
			:The server the bot was on had intermittent network connectivity problems last night. The bot is designed to wait increasingly long periods between edits when it encounters an error; as a result, it was waiting 12 hours between attempts. I've restarted the bot and it should work through the backlog over the next few hours. I've also modified the bot to cap the wait at half an hour. --] (]) 19:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
	==Hello check this out==
			:: Cheers ] &mdash; ] (]) 21:55, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
			::* Hi ] it appears that didn't fix the issue, it's still not managed to do any files and is still just logging the same warning. Cheers ] (]) 12:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
			::::It's mostly fixed, it just doesn't look like it. People have been busy deleting old versions of non-free files and moving images to Commons. The bot doesn't need to do anything with those files, but it still needs to look at the deletion logs for them, which takes time. (The bot finally caught up to actual deletions a few minutes ago.) --] (]) 21:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
			== Bot tagging ==
	Hello I have made a request for comment on Kurt Leyman and I need people to sign the request and also to sign on the specific page
			Please note that I've added a {{code|help{{=}}off}} parameter to all the DI tags, similar to how the CSD and PROD tags have them. Can ImageTaggingBot be updated to include that in its tags? Thanks. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;•&nbsp;]) 13:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
	http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct
			== Image removed without consensus ==
	http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kurt_Leyman
			The two images ] & ] were removed by the bot without reaching proper consensus. Please explain why? Thanks. ] (]) 04:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
	(] 03:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC))
			:The images were deleted by ] for being clear violations of the ], specifically point #1: a non-free image can only be used if a free equivalent cannot be created or obtained. The bot was simply cleaning up the leftover links to the deleted images. --] (]) 21:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
	== Need help ==
			==Re 'Lost in Space (2018 TV series)==
	Hi Carnildo,
			A specially created image was placed and I recieved this response...
			"Speedy deletion nomination of File:Chariot Images from lost in Space (2018).jpg
	If u remember you had edited ] . Buddy i need help... can you help me edit the same to bring it to wiki standards.
			A tag has been placed on File:Chariot Images from lost in Space (2018).jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{Tlx|Non-free fair use}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file. If the file has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it."
	Please!!!
			I did re-upload as suggested but it was ddleted again by the bot. Tt may have been an error where I placed the {{Tlx|Non-free fair use}} tag.
	Regards,
			can you advise where exactly in the upload info boxes i should place this in order for the image to be accepted, or the correct procedure to allow the acceptance, step by step... as I am new and learning - regards ] (]) 22:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
			== Deleted Image ==
	] 03:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
			Dear Sir, I am from hiwiki. I see that your bot removes non-exist image. Please sir, Can you give me scripts? so that I can run on my local wiki.--<span style="background:#444;padding:2px12px;font-size:12px">]<span style="color:#FC0;letter-spacing:-2px"> ❯❯❯ </span>]</span> 17:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
	== ] ==
			:The source code is available at ]; you'll also need the support libraries at ], ], and ]. --] (]) 19:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
	OrphanBot brought to my notice that the sound file uploaded by me was untagged. The file is actually created by me & I, in the mass-upload of other similar files I forgot to tag it. So now I have added a proper tag & summary to the file & remmoved the untagged template. I hope that it is not a problem. BTW I was going through the Misplaced Pages archives & saw your infamous wheel war case. I must tell you that I really admire the way you conducted yourself throughout the unfortunate incident despite you being de-sysopped & threatened. Despite the brickbats & insults you recieve you & your bot are invaluable to the maintainence of Misplaced Pages.
			== Corporate terrorism listed at ] ==
			]
			An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ]. Since you had some involvement with the ''Corporate terrorism'' redirect, you might want to participate in ] if you have not already done so. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> --]]] 20:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
			== ArbCom 2017 election voter message ==
	Cheers
			{{Ivmbox|Hello, Carnildo. Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
	]<b>]<font color="green">]</font>]</b><sup>'''<span style="color:#800080">(</span>'''] ¦ ]'''<span style="color:#800080">)</span>'''</sup>'' 07:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
			The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
	== Image:Mirko Vucinic.jpg ==
			If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. ] (]) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
	Hey, OprhanBot recently tagged a recently uploaded image as not having copyright info/unknown website. I actually recorded the website and date, and the entire terms and coditions as stated by the website the image was downloaded from. Also, in the image's description I highlighted the relevant image copyright status that it is not-for-profit, and usable with the inclusion of the terms and conditions. It's just that I did not find the proper tag in the drop down menu. --] 19:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
			|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}
			<!-- Message sent by User:Xaosflux@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2017/Coordination/MMS/02&oldid=813406680 -->
			== Your bot keeps insisting that ] has no source information ==
	:Unfortunately, that image can't be used on Misplaced Pages. The website only allows "personal, non-commercial use". Misplaced Pages isn't "personal use", and "non-commercial use only" images aren't permitted on Wikipeda. --] 20:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
			Hi there. Could you check your bot's behavior at ] please? The NFCC template prefills the source information automatically and does not require a specific source as the default source is almost always correct. Yet the bot keeps tagging the file as missing source information. Other files I used with the same template (e.g. ]) were not tagged. Regards ]] 07:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
	== OrphanBot feature request ==
			:"Can be obtained from the distributor" is sufficiently vague that the bot ignores it. The bot expects you to fill out at least one of "source", "publisher", "owner", "website", or "distributor" fields; it currently ignores the "developer" field, and I'm undecided on changing that, since the developer frequently isn't the copyright holder, particularly for promotional material. --] (]) 20:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
	Hi Carnildo. Your OrphanBot is great, and I really, really appreciate how it leaves a note on an image's description page on what pages it was removed from. However, when I delete an image, I have to manually go and edit each page the image was removed from by hand, to remove the commented out link. Would it be possible for your bot to return to articles 9-10 days after it commented out the images, and remove the images from the article if they had been subsequently deleted? This would make cleanup a lot easier, and would prevent a lot of orphaned, commented-out image links in articles. Thanks! ~]]] 02:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
	:Hmm, I've never even thought to delete the comment, it seems like it might be useful for finding what had been deleted at some later time, even if not it never seemed that harmful to me to leave it in. Maybe I am thinking about it a little differently than normal though. - ''']''' 06:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
	::Images that had previously been in the article will always be available in the history; there's no need for the comments to clutter up the current article, especially when many commented out images have been removed. ~]]] 16:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
	:::Perhaps the comments would be best removed from the article and a note placed on the talk with the format: An image with the description "&lt;caption&gt;" was removed from this article and subsequently deleted (&lt;link to deletion log entry for image&gt;). ] 23:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
			::Well, the template {{tlx|Non-free use rationale video game screenshot}} does not require those fields to be filled out, so I see where the clash is coming from. I'll add more info but for the future, before you make a change as contemplated, the template should be changed first. Regards ]] 15:34, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
	==Vandalism on ]==
			== ArbCom 2018 election voter message ==
	Please refrain from removing content from Misplaced Pages, as you did to ]. It is considered ]. If you want to experiment, please use the ]. Thank you. <!-- Template:Test2a-n (Second level warning) -->] 11:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
			{{Ivmbox|Hello, Carnildo. Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
	== {{tl|Indiancopyright}} ==
			The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
	I'm closing it as no consensus, but you might want to bring the entire thing up at ] so it can be sorted out. Peace. ] 00:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
			If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. ] (]) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
	== Orphanbot doesn't know about promophoto? ==
			|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}
			<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2018/Coordination/MMS/02&oldid=866997930 -->
			== ImageRemovalBot - add some maintenance categories? ==
	OrphanBot doesn't realize that {{tl|promophoto}} is a license tag. ? ] 00:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
			Good work from the bot here, but I'll occasionally find articles where it's taken out a deleted lead image and nobody's reacted to replace it with something else. I've just fixed up ], which has been without a lead image for five years, despite replacements being easily found on commons. Would it be worth the bot adding a maintenance category when erasing the only image from a lead section (and/or the only image from an article), so that humans interested in fixing these issues can do so? --] (]) 12:22, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
	:In computer science, it's called a ]: At 00:03 UTC, you uploaded the image with no copyright tag. About 15 seconds later, OrphanBot retrieved the page text and didn't find a copyright tag, so it added the image to the list of images it needed to add "untagged" to. Between then, and when it got around to actually applying the tag, you added {{tl|promophoto}}. --] 04:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
			:"Lead image" is too nebulous a concept for the bot to deal with. There's no good way for the bot to tell the difference between "first image in an article" and "first non-infobox image in an article". Anything I do to implement this will be prone to false positives, false negatives, or both. "Only image" is easier, but the bot can't tell the difference between meaningful images and user-interface images. It would see ], ], and ] as having images, when a human would say none of them does.
	::Perhaps it would be a good idea to add a longer delay between the image's upload and the automated bot tag. Since some images need to be tagged manually, and it can take a bit of time to find the right one, what if you added like a 5 or 10 minute lag? ~]]] 23:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
			:Adding a maintenance category is a good idea, but it's not something the bot is capable of doing correctly. --] (]) 22:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
	:::Right now, there's no specific delay. What the bot does is every hour, five minutes past the hour, it downloads the page text of the 150 most recently uploaded images. It then spends the next five minutes or so adding {{tl|untagged}}, {{tl|no info}}, and {{tl|no license}} tags to the images that need them. --] 23:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
			::Got it, I assumed the bot would be doing all its work at the unparsed wikisource level and wouldn't see the images in stub templates. That's fair enough then, if it's looking at this differently.
	:: It sounds like this bug could easily be fixed: just have OrphanBot re-check the page immediately before applying the no-tag tag, exactly the way a human would do it. Specifically, a human would edit the page, see whether there's a tag in the page source, and add {{tl|untagged}} otherwise. That completely avoids the race condition, because of MediaWiki's edit conflict feature. And it's kind of important to fix the bug, because OrphanBot shouldn't be incorrectly tagging images. ] 04:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
			::Do you think there's any mileage in adding an "only image was deleted" template (I guess a talk page template that uses a new subcategory of ]) even if it did overlook a lot of false negatives? Helping humans to catch some of these is better than none. --] (]) 08:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
			:::I don't think a template would be worth it. I just checked ImageRemovalBot's hundred most recent edits, and between stub templates, deletion templates, warning templates, flags in infoboxes, icons in navboxes, and other user-interface or decorative elements, very few of them would be seen as not having at least one image.
	:: I think it's fine if OrphanBot adds {{tl|untagged}} immediately after an image is uploaded, or any time later. As long as it only does that to images that aren't actually tagged. Once the uploader finds the right tag, they can easily remove the untagged-tag.
			:::The bot does almost nothing with unparsed wikitext -- that stuff's a ''pain'' to work with if you're a computer, because there are so many different ways of doing things. The bot doesn't even edit the raw text, it parses it into something easier to work with, then unparses it before uploading. --] (]) 21:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
	:: From your description, it sounds like OrphanBot doesn't examine every uploaded image (if there are more than 150 in an hour). I hope you'll fix that, so that OrphanBot actually makes sure that ''every'' image gets tagged. ] 04:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
			== Nomination of ] for deletion ==
			<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ].
			The article will be discussed at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
	:::If there's ever a flood of images uploaded in a single hour, it'll miss some, but at current average upload rates, 150 an hour means that there's about a 70% overlap between sets at peak upload time, and about a 250% overlap during slow periods. Adjusting the checking rate to match the upload rate is on my list of things to do, but given how the logs work, it's not the easiest thing in the world to do.
			Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.<!-- Template:afd notice --> ] (]) 19:54, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
	:::I've modified the bot to check for tags before it applies {{tl|untagged}}. I don't expect it to happen very often, though. --] 07:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
			== Files without a license tag ==
	:::: Thanks! Just my 2¢: if you aren't using ], that might be easier. You can use a link such as to get all the images uploaded since 14:44 today. They're paged 48 at a time, but that shouldn't be too hard to deal with, by checking for the "next 48" link. And that way there won't be any overlap at all. Cheers, ] 14:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
			Hi Carnildo. I maintain a weekly database report tracking ]. Since ImageTaggingBot already tags files found in the upload log, is there any way you could have the bot process this list of files too? Thanks, ] 03:56, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
	== Ashlee Simpson Picture ==
			* Should be easy enough. The bot's not real fussy about where it gets its list of images from. --] (]) 06:49, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
	Where did you get the information on Ashlee's Sales? ] 7:10pm cst 05/02/06
			==Inconsistent state==
			What is the meaning of "incosistent state" on ]? Perhaps it should be explained on ]. ] (]) 00:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
			:It's an image that shows up in the API as both "deleted" and "not deleted". It's been more than a year since the last time the bot found one, so maybe they've finally fixed the bug that was causing it. See https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T35292 --] (]) 01:58, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
	=== Susan Powers Image Deleted ===		== ArbCom 2019 election voter message ==
			<table class="messagebox " style="border: 1px solid #AAA; background: ivory; padding: 0.5em; width: 100%;">
	The image was directly from her web page, which quite clearly identifies it as Copyright 2003 Susan Powers.
			<tr><td style="vertical-align:middle; padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</td><td>Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2019|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
			The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
	Why was it deleted?
			If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. ] (]) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
	http://www.susanpowers.us/images/320_Flowers_in_a_Cricket_Box_Web_2.jpg
			</td></tr>
			</table>
			<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2019/Coordination/MMS/01&oldid=926750232 -->
			==Fair use image==
	== Image: Quixote 8788. png ==
			I just ] claiming that i've not provided the source information, etc to the ] image. This information was and is provided in the Image's file summary, but the display was not coming through right: (I swapped templates and rewrote the file summary.) The url source for the image is '''https://www.radcliffe.harvard.edu/people/william-s-mcfeely''', which links to the '''Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study Harvard University'''. -- ] (]) 22:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
			:The problem was missing close brackets in the "Minimality" parameter. That broke the template, and kept ImageTaggingBot from being able to read it. --] (]) 23:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
	Hi there, Im very new to this and I need to get some images in high resolution, Could you please please help me?
			:::Thanks. Is the image okay? -- ] (]) 05:16, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
			::::The claim of being impossible to replace is questionable. The general rule of thumb is that for someone who died after 2000, there's a good chance that someone has a photo that they'd be willing to give Misplaced Pages under a free license (try contacting his estate, or the public-relations offices at Harvard and the University of Georgia); additionally, he was active prior to 1977, so it's possible there's an older photo of him somewhere that was never copyrighted in the first place. --] (]) 18:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
			== "The Nonmetels" listed at ] ==
			]
			An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ]. Since you had some involvement with the ''The Nonmetels'' redirect, you might want to participate in ] if you wish to do so. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 18:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
			== Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago ==
	The image is Quixote 8788. I need 4 more but I just want to see if you could help me with the first,
			{{User QAIbox
			| title = Awesome
			| image = Cscr-featured.svg
			| image_upright = 0.35
			| bold = ]
			}}
			--] (]) 05:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
			== Image removal ==
	Thanks so much,
	Hope to talk soon
	Kind Regards
	Natasha
	natasha@sideline.ie
			Can I ask why you remove the images?? ] (]) 21:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
	== Coit Tower image ==
			: If you're referring to your rifle uploads, they were deleted by a number of administrators for violating copyright. You can't just grab images off random Internet pages and use them on Misplaced Pages. --] (]) 00:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
	copyright fixed! I was unaware I did not do this in the first place! ] 17:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
			== A message ==
	== Your affirmative action style deletions are un-called for. ==
	You even delete pictues I took and scanned myself.
			Hi. Could you tell {{u|ImageRemovalBot}} to, when commenting out images with two or more line breaks either side of the image, either to place the opening <nowiki><!--</nowiki> at the end of the previous line or to place the ending <nowiki>--></nowiki> at the start of the next line. What it's doing at the moment has the effect that it effectively leaves three line breaks, meaning there is a noticeable 'gap' in the middle of an article.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 01:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
	:What is an "affirmative action style deletion"? --] 02:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Whatever it is, it isn't what I'd describe your bot's methods. If I were to use a description, I would lean towards ]. -- ] 14:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
	== Imposter ==		== ImageTaggingBot error ==
			ImageTaggingBot said an image I uploaded (ContrabandVelvetRevolverAltCover.png) wasn't tagged when it had a non-free fair use rational on it. I'd like to know what happened with the bot to flag it. ] (]) 01:57, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
	Just a heads-up, I've just blocked ] for vanalising the muslim userbox, and redirecting his user talk here. Looks like you've got a fan! --] ] 14:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
	== What tag applies to this? ==		== ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message ==
			<table class="messagebox " style="border: 1px solid #AAA; background: ivory; padding: 0.5em; width: 100%;">
	I found this on the website for CalTrans, an agency of the State of California at the bottom of :
			<tr><td style="vertical-align:middle; padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</td><td>Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2020|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
	:OWNERSHIP In general, information presented on this web site, unless otherwise indicated, is considered in the public domain. It may be distributed or copied as permitted by law. However, the State does make use of copyrighted data (e.g., photographs) which may require additional permissions prior to your use. Furthermore, the unique branding of the site and various official seals and marks may not be used without permission of the State.
	So I think this applies to things found on all things found on websites owned by the State of California that are not "otherwise indicate" as having copyrights. What tag should I use? Thanks. -- ] 10:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
			The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
	== Stop messaging me ==
			If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. ] (]) 01:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
	Set Orphanbot to never message me again in *my* talk page. ]]] 10:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
			</td></tr>
			</table>
			<!-- Message sent by User:Xaosflux@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2020/Coordination/MMS/01&oldid=990307860 -->
			==] has been nominated for renaming==
			<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>''']''' has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the ] guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at ''']''' on the ] page.<!-- Template:Cfd-notify--> Thank you. ]<sup>] • ]</sup> 21:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
	==Possible OrphanBot False Positive==
	] inserted a "no Source" message into ] re: ]. That image already had pre-existing <nowiki>{{PD-old}}</nowiki> & should not have been picked up. Thanks --] ]
			==ImageTaggingBot bugs==
	:OrphanBot is correct. The image needs source information (who created it, when, and when it was published) in order to verify that the {{tl|PD-old}} tag is correct. --] 01:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
			]
			The template below was left on my user page but appears to be erroneous. Please note the following issues:
			# A citation was provided for the image
	== Sorry... ==
			# The bot claims that "''ImageTaggingBot does not tag images for deletion.''" but it left a tag on the image saying "''Unless this information is added to this page, the image will be deleted after 17 February 2021.''"
			# The bot's ] talks about "lacking ]" but this is a red link and so the thing that's it's looking for does not seem to be defined.
			# The bot repeated itself – that's edit-warring
			===Image tagging for File:Kristoffer Domeij.jpg===
			Thanks for uploading ''']'''. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Misplaced Pages, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.
			To add this information, click on ], then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on ].
	I want to write you I'm sorry about that message. I was really angry because images I uploaded were deleted so many times even if i wrote where I found them. I don't like to insult people, since neither I or others feel better after that. I wanted to write such an angry message to you, but I changed my mind as I considered this whole discussion one big misunderstanding (that's why I wrote "don't do it again" part). I do not consider you an idiot and, as I said, I wouldn't want to. I can't say I don't understand "the crowd" as I still don't agree with you, but that doesn't give me rights to insult another person. ''Ispričavam se. ]''
			For more information on using images, see the following pages:
	P.S. ''I'll try my best to solve this copyright problem, but right now I have no idea how to do it.''
			* ]
			* ]
			Thank you for your cooperation. --] (]) 13:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
	==Help required! - Doves.jpg==
			]🐉(]) 10:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
	Hi! I'm new to image editng on WP, and have a small problem with Doves.jpg - I know you do a lot of work with images so thought I'd see if you can help.
			* The issue has now been posted at ]
	Somebody replaced this picture of the band ] with a picture of a snooker player(!) - I tried to revert to the correct version twice (by clicking on rev by the original version), but both times it selected the incorrect version, and the second time rescaled it too. I didn't want to carry on messing around with it in case I accidentally deleted the good version. Do you know what is going on here, and if so could you restore the good version?
			== Sorry ==
	Many thanks in advance for your help, ]]] 03:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
			Should have checked my revision (1014448688) further before applying it. ] (]) 04:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
	==Policy disputed tag?==
	I just reverted a "policy disputed" template on WP:FUC, that was placed there a second time after you reverted it. Does that template even exist? Seems like a strange template to have if you ask me. ] 06:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
	:It's a generic "message" template that someone's using to "dispute" policy. --] 06:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
			== ImageTaggingBot has missed a file ==
	== Bot malfunction ==
			Hello!
	Orphanbot just nuked this image ]. The image page clearly states it is a PD image from the Commons, and the source is clearly listed on the page. I revert a dozen of these every week -- please tweak your filters. - ] ] 18:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Are you sure you're referring to the right image? There's no evidence that ] has ever been uploaded to the English Misplaced Pages, and OrphanBot's logs don't show it ever having come across an image with that name. --] 20:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
	::My bad, it was this image ]. Source was in the comments in the upload history. - ] ] 20:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::I'll see what I can do about it. --] 18:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
			] hasn't seemed to have had a license for its entire existing. Why hasn't it been tagged as a file without a license? ] (]) 22:40, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
	== Source for Fair Use images ==
			: Thanks for bringing that to my attention. The bot got confused by the transclusion of ], ], ], and ], and couldn't tell if the page had a license tag or not. When that happens, it takes the conservative route and assumes that an unknown transclusion is a license template it's never seen before. I've updated the bot to recognize that those modules are not licenses. --] (]) 01:07, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
	If the source is used to ascertain the copyright status of the image, the source should not matter for fair use images. It says right in the template tag that the image is copyrighted. Why would it matter then where it came from? For ] I Googled it and pasted the URL of the first website that came up. That accomplished exactly nothing because that website probably scanned the image from a book or also Googled it. But hey, it has a source now. - ] ] 20:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
			:: Aha, sounds good.] (]) 13:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
	:As ] states, determining if a use is "fair" or not depends on four factors:
	:# the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
	:# the nature of the copyrighted work;
	:# the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
	:# the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
	:Evaluating factors 2, 3, and 4 requires knowing the real source of the image (not a random website). --] 20:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
			:::Hi again. I have now also found ] which also lacks a license without ImageTaggingBot tagging it.] (]) 22:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
	::Now you are just being obstinant on purpose.
	::# to illustrate the aircraft in question
	::# where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information
			::::There are going to be a number of files out there with the module-transclusion problem. I suspect it's going to be anything with a {{tl|information}} template but no license. --] (]) 07:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
	::Fair Use laws were written specifically for these cases. The company which built the aircraft has not existed since 1936. The author is unknown and in all likelihood impossible to determine. Every single aircraft book ever published relies on these old images. I can just as easily change the tag to "promophoto" since that's what these photographs are 99% of the time. If you were familiar with the field, you would have a better understanding of the matter. - ] ] 21:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::No, ] laws were written to protect "transformative uses" of copyrighted materials such as quoting part of a work in a review or for scholarly criticism. Use of a copyrighted image to illustrate an object in that image is not covered under "fair use".
			:::::Actually ] didn't have {{t|Information}} but rather {{t|Non-free use rationale logo}} without a license, see ]. Is it the same problem still?] (]) 21:57, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
	:::Use of works where the copyright is hard to track down, or where the copyright holder has effectively abandoned the work, is a separate area of copyright law, one that basically says "if you can't find the copyright holder, it's still copyright infringement if they find you". (See ] for an example of this.)
	:::And if you change the copyright tag to {{tl|promophoto}}, you'd damn well be able to ''prove'' that it came out of a company's ]. --] 21:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)		::::::Yes. Templates derived from {{tl|Non-free use rationale}} use ] to categorize the type of article link present, which got the bot confused. --] (]) 20:18, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
			== Image border for deleted images ==
	The Fairuseair template and the use of this image is in full compliance with ] (two copyright examinations of the template were requested and yielded no comments). The issue at hand is not abandonware but "nonexistentware." It is impossible to obtain a free photograph of something that no longer exists. Hence, a single low-resolution photograph used for illustrative purposes, and in good faith, is fair use. Please stop making it difficult for those of us who are making a good faith effort to make this in a good encyclopedia. I actually review all photos in every article I edit and label/re-tag them as appropriate, including copyvio tags (your cyber hound doesn't catch a copyrighted image with listed source that the uploader tagged as "PD/GFDL/CC"). - ] ] 22:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
			Hello. I noticed that at ], the image's file border remains after the deleted ] was removed by ImageRemovalBot. I was wondering if the file border could also automatically be removed when a deleted image is removed by ImageRemovalBot. Thanks! ] (]) 01:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
	== Image Logo_Founex.gif ==
			: I'll look into it, but template parameter syntax is so complicated that I can't guarantee anything. --] (]) 05:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
	How do I change the status of Logo founex.gif?
	Because OrphanBot has considered this as an unidentified image, when I have changed the status to a coat of arms but Orphan bot must still consider it an undentified image.
	Why?
			== ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message ==
	] 08:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
			<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
	{{coatofarms}}.
			<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px; max-width: 100px">]</div>
			<div class="ivmbox-text">
			Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2023|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
			The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
	:Note that phrase in bold on the first line of the tag? "This image may or may not be usable in Misplaced Pages"? "Coat of arms" isn't really a license tag, it's more of an indication that the image may have restrictions on it separate from any based on copyright law.
			If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)</small>
	:The copyright situation with coats of arms can be confusing. In the European tradition, the "coat of arms" that is granted is actually a text description of the arms, and any graphical depiction is one artist's impression of that description -- an impression that is certainly eligable for copyright. --] 18:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
			</div>
	==Ioannis Fourakis==
			</div>
			<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2023/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1187131902 -->
			== BAG membership ==
	Greetings.
			Hello. You are listed as a ] but it appears you may not be actively helping in this area anymore. Do you intend to return to BAG-related activity on Misplaced Pages, or are you happy to be removed from this list? &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 12:56, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
			:Feel free to remove me -- I've been inactive on actually approving since the beginning, and haven't commented on a request in years. --] (]) 20:21, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
	I need your help concerning the page ]. Apparently your bot deleted the images. I admit I did not add copyright stuff as I did not know what to choose ( my english sucks). About the copyright in plain words the first image is just a foto used to determine who Ioannis Fourakis is and the second is a TV screenshot of low resolution so I guess both of them are legal. I hope you take care of my little problem soon. Bye
			::Okay will do, thanks &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 20:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
			== Deletion of an image used within Template:Multiple image ==
	]
			by ImageRemovalBot deleted one of two images used with ], resulting in a single over-sized and distorted image looking like a mess. Please note, I am not contesting why the image was deleted. I wonder if there is a better way to remove the image from the page without the resutling mess? This could be a unique situation where the bot flags the page for manual deletion? Best wishes. ] (]) 00:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
	== OrphanBot error ==
			:It's hardly a unique situation: there are many image-display templates that look less than ideal once the bot's removed the image. It's only worth coding special handling if the result breaks the page. --] (]) 05:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
	OrphanBot picked me up on an image I optimised, ], saying it was untagged.--] <small>(])</small> 12:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
			== Invitation to participate in a research ==
	:Thanks for pointing it out. I'm working on fixing the bug. --] 19:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
	::It happened again with ].--] <small>(])</small> 06:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
	== Shoreditch_arms.png ==
	Oh dear! As far as I can see from above this bot is now '''outlawing''' the ''coat of arms'' tag, but is only picking on newly updated images. What about the hundreds of existing images with the coat of arms tag? Is the coat of arms tag a dud? What would you suggest in its place? I've tried tinkering around with the fair use tag but can't find a way of inserting required source info etcetera. Confused and not happy. ] 15:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
	:{{tl|Coat of arms}} hasn't been an acceptable copyright tag since last November. Nobody's bothered to enforce it before I started having OrphanBot tag image uploads, which is why it seems that the bot is outlawing the tag. As for existing images, there are about 4000 images tagged as "coat of arms", and I get about one complaint for every ten images, so I'm in no particular hurry.
	:For coats of arms in the European tradition, there's a text description (technically, a ]) around somewhere. It's encyclopedic information, particularly if there's a description of why those particular arms were chosen, and should be placed in the article. You can then find a Wikipedian who can draw up the arms from the description, or you can do it yourself. There's a program called "Blazon95" that can handle simple coats of arms; for more complex arms, a vector-graphics program such as Inkscape is a good choice.
	:For arms in the American tradition, there's no text description: the picture is the canonical form. It's basically a logo that happens to have a shield as the background, so it should be tagged as {{tl|logo}}. --] 19:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Didn't know {{tl|Coat of arms}} was gone: most images of that type I've uploaded have been about 90 years old and PD. The ''exceptional'' thing about Shoreditch is that it was never an official grant, which means it's more like a {{tl|logo}}. Most civic arms are much too complicated for "Blazon95": I can see a few hundred hours spent redrawing these things in CorelDraw. Oh well.
	::I presume a photograph of the arms from a road side sign or similar (if I took the picture) could be acceptable? ] 21:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::Yes and no. A straight-on photograph cropped to contain only the arms is no different from copying an image from anywhere else. A photograph containing the whole sign is generally acceptable. --] 21:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::I see. I think the situation regarding defunct municipalities is a little more complicated. I had some e-mail correspondence with the ] about a particular council which was charging money to "licence" the use of the arms of several extinct councils in its area. As I suspected, the college confirmed that the with the abolition of the old councils the arms no longer pertained to anybody, technically reverting to the crown. The present council had no right to licence them to anybody. However, the college has no copyright interest in particular images of arms, only in people using them as their own. It all depends on what arrangement the artist made with the municipality in regard to assigning copyright: the chances of finding that out are slim to none. Sort of ]?
	::::] 08:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
	==Hey==
	Took the liberty of removing the "seals of approval" from the OrphanBot talk page. I BJAODN'd them because I have a nutty sense of humour. Cheers -- <font face="Arial">] </font>]<font face="Arial Narrow"> <small> ] ] </small></font> 06:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
	== Orphanbot error? ==
	It have just recently found that an image i have uploaded, ] has been identified as not having sources and may be deleted in the next seven days. However, that was a while ago. Has this problem been fixed? ] <sup>] | ] ]</sup> 16:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Yes, that bug's been fixed. --] 02:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
	== Indian Coat of Arms ==
	Thank you for the notice, I have now commented on the source.
	] 17:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
	== OrphanBot errors ==
	OrphanBot's acting weirdly. It recently contacted me about an image I'd appropriately tagged (twice; see ]), saying I hadn't adduced any fair use justifications, which is both wrong and out of OrphanBot's operating guidelines on its user page:
	#"OrphanBot tags images with no description as {{tl|no source}}
	#OrphanBot removes images with certain tags from articles using them.
	#OrphanBot notifies the presumed uploader of the impending deletion."
	What it did fell into none of those three categories. --] ] ] 02:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Sorry about the multiple notifications. I've been testing a new version of OrphanBot to expand the range of new image uploads it can handle, and it's been making a few mistakes. --] 02:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
	::It's not so much ''multiple'' notifications, but that there was ''any'' notification. --] ] ] 03:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	I notice you tagged this image with {{tl|no rationale}}. However, the image was uploaded after ] so it currently doesn't qualify for that process. Also, don't forget to notify uploaders of images when you add this tag using the {{tls|missing rationale}} tag that is provided to copy and paste when you add {{tl|no rationale}}. Thanks! ] (]) 10:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
	== Barnstar ==
	I've awarded you for OrphanBot, and related issues. ] (]) 11:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
	== Images with multiple uploaders ==
	Regarding images with multiple uploaders.... would it be possible to notify both the latest and earliest uploader (or all uploaders)? I made a minor tweak to ], and then was requested by OrphanBot to resolve the copyright issue. Since I wasn't the one who downloaded it from somewhere else, I'm not the best person to resolve the issue, so I had to move the message to the original uploader. Per above, you have a whitelist that allows uploaders to say "this is a minor tweak"... do you have a list of terms that I can use? ("optimized using optipng" isn't appropriate for most of my tweaks) Does the whitelist term have to be the entire edit summary, or can I add things after it? (eg. I usually prefer to explain my minor tweaks as much as possible). Thanks... --] 19:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Sorry for taking so long to respond. If you include the word "tweak" or "tweaked" in the upload summary, OrphanBot will know you aren't uploading a new image. --] 03:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
	== fair use question ==
	Since you are the fair use master :) - on ] we now two variations of the same logo, its current one. Is this acceptable do you believe under wikipedia's fair use rules? <small>] <sup><font color="#6BA800">]</font> | <font color="#0033FF">]</font> | <font color="#FF0000">]</font></sup></small> 05:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
	:If you're talking about ] and ], it seems acceptable. From a stylistic point of view, I'd suggest removing one or the other, or adding a paragraph discussing the difference between the two logos. --] 18:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	Hi Carnildo. Orphanbot left a message on ] about the status of ]. I'd just blocked the user, for one week, and so he's going to be utterly unable to change the image status. I actually recognise the image, it's from the BBC website, and should be deleted. But the point is that this may happen in the future; if a temporarily blocked editor uploaded a perfectly good image, but had failed to tag it, he would subsequently be unable to amend its status. Is there any way of making Orphanbot clever enough to notice if an editor has been blocked? ]<font color="#555555"><b>||</b></font><small>]</small> 13:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Not efficiently, no. Figuring out if a user is blocked requires retrieving that user's block log, and 99.9%+ of the time, the user isn't blocked. On a typical day, this would require checking block logs 600 times, and an additional two hours to go through the day's images. Also, what useful action could OrphanBot take if the uploader was blocked? --] 18:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
	::No problem. I'm not au fait with what bots can and can't do. ]<font color="#555555"><b>||</b></font><small>]</small> 11:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
	== ] image ==
	Please see my comments at ]. Thanks. --]]]]<sup>]</sup> 18:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	As wikipedia gives me a hell of headache to edit (not yet very user-friendly, hun), pls add these mentions (Author: Serge Scheer. Copyright: Chris Azoeuf) and re-publish it. I tried to make it myself but this system seems not like the way I do. Tks. Chris Azoeuf
	== Still debugging? ==
	is a rather mystifying log entry, since ] has both reasonable description (with link even) and correct tag. ] 14:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
	:That's OrphanBot telling me that it doesn't recognize the tag. OrphanBot classifies templates into seven groups: copyright tags that require source information, copyright tags that include source information in the tag, copyright tags that require a fair-use rationale, copyright tags that should never be seen (referred to in the logs as "forbidden tags"), copyright tags that shouldn't be used any more ({{tl|coat of arms}}, {{tl|PD-flag}}), templates that indicate the image will be deleted soon, and templates that are commonly seen on images but that have nothing to do with copyright. Any template that isn't listed in one of those categories is reported on the log as an "image with unknown tag", so I can figure out where it belongs.
	:In the case you cite, the format of the tag changed recently, from a simple <nowiki>{{gamecover}}</nowiki> to <nowiki>{{gamecover|category}}</nowiki>, and I haven't updated OrphanBot's description of the tag to match. --] 18:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
	==Fair use question==
	Hello, I hope you don't mind if I ask you this fair use question: During ] nomination I realized that the images are for DVD covers and not screenshots from the episodes themselves. I believe that this means fair use is not applicable (i.e. the article/list is not about DVDs but individual episodes). What do you think? Too nitpicky? ] 18:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	Instead of commenting the usage of this image, simply replace it with ], and everything is fine. Now you are breaking quite a lot of pages, as that image is/was used a lot. ] 12:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
	:I've ] why this image has been ophaned, when it appears to have a fair use notice on it. Thanks, ] 14:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
	== Robot ==
	I want to have a robot named ] and here is the tasks of my robot:
	* Make Category
	* Raplace a letter with another
	* Make redirect
	* Interwiki (Especially Farsi language)
	* Disambiguation pages
	Before I read that I must request it, So What should I do??? --] 12:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
	===Time,_Tidiness,_and_Checks===
	Hi!&nbsp; Ho, hey, and a Hi-diddle-diddle: Your Bot, me 'thimks', needs hae' a (longer?) time delay!
	<blockquote style="margin:12px">
	re:], which I'll be processing further, then loading over top of eventually. This will do for now and starters!
	I'd slipped up and forgot to click one of the templates when uploading, and was in an edit screen nailing down the proper tag and documenting that when your BOT 'slimed me'! <g> I'm really writing in case you or it, <U>keeps a log</u>, as this one's been dealt with already!
	<center><div style="width:80%; border: blue 1px solid; padding:1em; margin:1em; align:center; text-align:left">
	:Via: and
	:Src: , there are a ton of these authorative little gems just begging to be uploaded as needed.
	Cited Src: The following maps are from the ''<u>Atlas To Freeman's Historical Geography</u>, Edited by J.B. Bury, Longmans Green and Co. Third Edition 1903.
	I was busy doing the math, and updating the article on JB Bury, finally choosing this classification,<small>
	<nowiki>{{PD-old-70}}</nowiki>—for images where the author died more than 70 years ago (1936).<br>
	(Note: not where the work, image, or subject is 70 or more years old.)</small><br>
	Old ] died in 1927, so this immense authorative important seminal work is now available.
	</div></center>
	I'd appreciate knowing whether you agree with this classification, or whether some other is more appropo. I'm lousy at checking my watch list, so please drop me a note back on ]. Then when I upload another, I can get it fast and easy!
	</blockquote>
	Also, do you think wikisource ought be alerted on these many images? Thanks!
	Best regards, <B>]</B><font color="green">]</font> 16:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
	== Image:Marvin_meets_Rover.jpg ==
	This was circulating around the Internet. How does one tag something like that? ] 22:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
	*OK, since you won't answer, I'll have to remove your delete tag. ] 23:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
	== 0waldo ==
	the license is fine. I had my lawyer read it. Thsnkd for your help! ] 04:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
	Dear carnildo,
	please it's ok, I promise! I did all of themn so I could share them and I love wikipedia and can't stop so please llet me just keep them here! I put therem here to share and I PROMISE THEY ARE FREE!!!!! I donated money from a money order!!! just let them stayu now PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
	thanks! waldo.
	Dear carnildo: please delete all images that have "0waldo" in them! Thanks for making sure Misplaced Pages is such a safe and proper place!!!! waldo. ] 23:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
	== OrphanBot ==
	Hello,		Hello,
			The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this ''''''.
	Could you please get your bot to stop bothering me? It keeps sending me messages about ] being an unsourced image, even though a source has been provided. --] 12:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Where is the source? I don't see one.... <small>] <sup><font color="#6BA800">]</font> | <font color="#0033FF">]</font> | <font color="#FF0000">]</font></sup></small> 12:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
	::The source is available ; or are you pulling my leg? ] 17:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
	:There used to be an entry in the licencing field of uploaded images for 'press kit material'; what is the replacement tag? Your bot keeps bothering me, and I don't know what else to do... ] 12:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
			You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
	== ] has a source ==
			The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its ] and view its ] .
	This picture clearly states: "A screenshot from Super Mario 64, made with the 1964 Nintendo 64 emulator. Taken by Bobdoe." I don't see what else you could say about it. Why did OrphanBot ? ''']''' (]) 17:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
			Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
	== Image galleries ==
			Kind Regards,
	Hello, Carnildo. I'm personally having qualms with these galleries: ], ], ], ], ], ]. What's your opinion? --'''<font color="DEB367">]</font>.<font color="667966">hc</font>''' 20:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
			]
	== ] has source info ==
			<bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">] (]) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC) </bdi>
	I'm afraid your bot must be mistaken, ] has source information. It has a tag that isn't considered optimal, so I'll try to update that, but your bot didn't say anything about the tag. &mdash;] ] 22:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
			<!-- Message sent by User:UOzurumba (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=UOzurumba_(WMF)/sandbox_Research_announcement_list_for_enwiki_Potential_Admins&oldid=27650229 -->
			== ImageRemovalBot ==
	==] has source info ==
	I am the author of this photo and therefore own Copyright. The first time I uploaded the photo I forgot to put this information in the appropriate box. I re-loaded the photo on here adding that I am the author, but it has been taken off again twice. How can I re-add this photo stating that I have ownership?
	Pauline Keightley ''''
			Hi @]: I wonder how I can bring this bot on Urdu Misplaced Pages? I have been fighted with a lot of non-licensed copyright violation files on the project and it is too tedious to remove the usage from articles. Could you help? I can help provide translated edit-summaries in Urdu, in case this can be easily done. <small><sub><span style="color:SteelBlue;">Regards, </span></sub></small>] ] 16:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
	== No original author! ==
			:The bot's source code is available at ]. You'll also need the support files linked at the top of that page. To make it work on Urdu Misplaced Pages, you'll need to modify the "$Pearle::Wiki" variable in ].
	Please do not ask for original author when the tag specifically states the image has no such ] 17:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
			:The bot is written in Perl, so running it is a bit more difficult than the Python that most bots use. Feel free to contact me if you've got any questions. -- ] (]) 05:51, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
			== ImageTaggingBot question ==
	{{PD-ineligible}}
			Do you know why ImageTaggingBot double tagged ]? There were no intervening edits so perhaps it's a bug? If this kind of thing has already been asked about and explained above, then my apologies for being repetitive. -- ] (]) 06:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
	''This image is ineligible for copyright and therefore is in the public domain, because it consists entirely of information that is common property and '''contains no original authorship.''' ''
			:According to the bot's log, the server returned a "502 Malformed Server Response Status" error the first time it tried adding the tag, so it waited a bit and asked the server to try again. -- ] (]) 07:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
	Teach your damned bot to read before letting it loose. How hard can it be?
			== ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message ==
	*{{tl|PD-ineligible}}—for images that are inherently ineligible for copyright protection because they are based exclusively on common knowledge with no element of creativity. An example would be ] or things like multiplication tables. If you have any doubts, please ].
			<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
	This description is fitting for an image created mechanically from a math plotting program. That the process is mechanical does '''not''' mean that the process is without sweat! So stop this sillyness before you get banned from Misplaced Pages on grounds of vandalism.
			<div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div>
			<div class="ivmbox-text">
			Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
			The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
	] 04:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
	:The bot doesn't pay any attention to that because the vast majority of the time, that tag is used incorrectly. --] 07:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
			If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small>
	::If your bot is not smart enough to do the right thing, then you are performing plain automated vandalism. Fix it! And if you are not smart enough to create a correctly working AI, then don't mess around with other peoples work! ] 08:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::You're being offensive. --'''<font color="DEB367">]</font>.]''' 11:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::Yes, because the bot does not pay any attention, and the owner seems not to care. Using vague statistics as an excuse for pointing in random directions out of control, is quite offensive too ] 12:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::::]: '''There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them.''' --'''<font color="DEB367">]</font>.]''' 12:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
			</div>
	::::::Excuse me? Look above and see that Carnildo himself admits that the bot ''pays no attention''. This is not an acceptable behaviour, automated or otherwise. ] 12:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
			</div>
			<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1258243333 -->
	:::OrphanBot is actually two bots running under the same account, doing similar tasks:
	:::#"OrphanBot" inspects images tagged with {{tl|no source}} and {{tl|no license}}, and removes them from articles if they've been tagged for long enough. It generally trusts that the person who applied the tag knows what they are doing, the only exception being that if an image is tagged {{tl|no source}} and either {{tl|PD-self}} or {{tl|GFDL-self}}, it reports the image to me for evaluation. If it sees an image tagged with {{tl|PD-ineligible}}, it assumes the person who applied the {{tl|no source}} tag knows better than the person who applied the license tag.
	:::#"TagBot" inspects recent image uploads for minimal compliance with the image use policy. If it sees an image tagged with {{tl|PD-ineligible}}, it expects to find an explanation of why the image is ineligible for copyright.
	:::--] 18:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::OK! In this case it appears like ] supplied the {{tl|no source}}. Now I wonder: By what logic can you assume that she is a better IP-Lawyer than the uploader? By looking at the picture it is quite obvious that it is generated rather than painted or photoed, so I would assume she is perhaps not fully aware of what she is doing. As an aside, I browsed through a few pages of the non-elegible category and It appears like an overwhelming majority of the pictures indeed are generated (chemical structures, basic musical notation, graph theory and various statistics etc ...) This breaks your assumption above that statistically the bot will be more right than wrong, right? ] 20:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::::PD-ineligible is for those things where, if two people were asked to make it, they would both come up with the same result. Things like ]. A ] is not ineligible: the selection of colors, and the choice of map projection, are both creative elements. Neither is ]: there's creativity in the choice of colors and the graph scale. A chemical diagram could be decided either way: there are at least ] ] on how to draw them. A ] could also be decided either way: even if the selected text is non-creative ("The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog"), there is creativity in the choice of typeface, and in some parts of the world, the typeface itself is protected intellectual property. From looking through the first five pages of ], I'd estimate that less than 10% is clearly correctly tagged, about 50% falls into the grey area, and about 40% is clearly incorrect. --] 23:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::If you set the threshold for a copyright dispute as low as the output from ], then I am afraid we will never reach an agreement. It will take some good lawyring and a gullible judge to make that one fly though (but perhaps still possible?) In the given case there is of course an easy workaround. I can put a harsher license on the plots and be done. But it feels kind of funny to do it that way. Kind of like putting up a sign saying BEWARE OF THE DOG, where there is no dog. ] 07:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
	== Apparent OrphanBot CRITICAL error ==
	On the 13th, OrphanBot's {{tl|no info}} code made a number of mistakes, tagging images with clear information on them as lacking any. Here's an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Image:PlankroadAlaska.JPG&diff=52936711&oldid=52934405
	Just came across this when clearing out the category. Thanks for all the work you do. ] 18:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Thanks. I found out about it yesterday, and turned off OrphanBot's upload tagging until I can fix it. --] 21:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
	== Olympic rings - cleaning up ==
	Hi Carnildo,
	] is no longer being suggested for deletion as far as I can tell. Is Orphanbot (or another bot) capable of un-commenting the images, or will some poor soul have to make 498 edits manually? ] 01:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
	:I'll put OrphanBot to work on it tomorrow. --] 06:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
	::While you are at that, why not replace it with ] instead? --] <span style="font-size:75%">]</span> 20:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::The restore functionality works by simply uncommenting the existing image. --] 00:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
	:I've replaced ] with ] version on ]. There's still a lot to do, though. --'''<font color="DEB367">]</font>.]''' 14:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
	==Image:Startrek6224==
	I think I provided a source for this image but if i didn't, please tell me. Thanks. --] 17:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
	== Thanks for the bot! ==
	Hi!
	Looking over your talk page, it seems like you get a lot of flak for running OrphanBot. I wanted to take a moment to say 'thank you' for operating it. Image copyright is a tricky (and often volatile) area that was overlooked for too long, and your bot helps to clean up the mess. And you were brave to wade in so deep. So, thanks.
	] ] 21:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
	'''I beg to differ...'''
	== Images on ] ==
	Hi, the only remaining image on this page has been marked by your bot as having no source information. However, I cannot find any instructions on how to add the source information, does it need to be uploaded again? I have never uploaded an image myself, so I am not familiar.
	Also, I have read the links from your FAQ, and it took me to ]. That refers to the image description page, but does not say what that is. Also, I think an example link to a correctly defined image would help. I found the myriad of instructions to require careful reading, which I don't have the time for right now, but an example would help me understand more quickly. --] 01:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
	:Click on the image. That will take you to the image description page. Clicking on "edit this page" will let you change the page's contents, just like you would with any other Misplaced Pages page.
	:An image description page for an image from a website needs, at a bare minimum, to have a link to the page containing the image. It should also have a brief description of the image. ] is an example of this. --] 01:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
	Just checking, OrhanBot was one of the most despised 'bots' on Misplaced Pages, perhaps the worst with an unprecedented amount of complaints. Among the problems are that it does not differentiate between real and imagined violations; does not present a chance to discuss a case, rather rending 'guilty until proven innocent' justice; does not respect the concept of ex post facto; does not make it clear what could be done to 'correct' the 'technical' error. Can you imagine if the law courts were run by a robot that executed defendants unless they had 7 days to prove their innocence? When you carry it to its ultimate conclusion, OrphanBot is a tyrannical dictator and Carnildo has been inconsiderate at best, instead of trying to correct its deficiences Carnildo links to the complaints as examples of 'stupidity.'
	The Editor's Barnstar
	I, Chodorkovskiy, present Carnildo with the Editor's Barnstar for OrphanBot. It has done much to rid Misplaced Pages of uncopyrighted images, as well as people incapable of following its policies, as evidenced here.
	In other words, Carnildo has teleologically definded 'success' as irritating others, while turning a blind ear to the reality that maybe this many complaints means there's something wrong with OrphanBot, NOT the other way around. Opposed to censorship, when he is a censor? Laughable. → R Young {yakłtalk} 21:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	== fair use rationale ==
	How is orphan bot tagging images as having no fair use rationale? I noticed you state on orphan bot's user page that it does not evaluate fair-use claims, so I'm puzzled at this. I can see one way it might do it, but I'm interested in hearing how you have it set up. ] <small>]</small> 13:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
	:It looks for any of about a dozen keywords that pretty much any fair use rationale will have. I've been thinking of replacing that with a Naive Bayes classifier or similar, but training a classifier would require a much larger selection of fair-use rationales than I've been able to assemble so far. --] 18:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Hmmm. Have a look at ] which has got a rationale, but the bot tagged it. You might also need to rethink the claim that it doesn't evaluate fair use claims, I'd take it that this means it doesn't evaluate rationales, something it is now doing.
	::*And to segue badly, is there no criteria by which untagged images can just be speedied? That seems a tad daft. I try my hand at this sporadically, granted, but do I really have to tag them all as fair use and then apply an orphan tag if they're orphaned? Surely by now we should be demanding images be tagged. ] <small>]</small> 21:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::You can reasonably stretch I4 to cover untagged images. Jimbo's original wording was a lot looser than the current criteria: basically, anything that had been on Misplaced Pages for more than a week that didn't have a source or copyright information could be deleted. Be sure to check for copyright information in a non-standard form: sometimes, particularly for self-created images, people give the copyright status in the form of a statement, rather than using a copyright tag. --] 22:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Yes, but should we really have to wait a week? Shouldn't this stuff just be deleted upon upload, or perhaps within 24 hours? ] <small>]</small> 19:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::OrphanBot's checking for presence of a claim, not correctness of the claim. That particular image was tagged while I was refining the list of keywords, and I must have missed it while checking OrphanBot's work. --] 22:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::Fair play. ] <small>]</small> 19:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	== User:Jerry Jones/JJstroker ==
	Since you've interacted with this individual in the past, I though you might be interested in . ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 14:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
	=="My" images tagged - fair use, etc==
	Hello! I'm still a bit confused with your concept of "fair use". Do you really think that uploading an image from a book (or worse, from a paper in a scientific journal) to wikipedia can cause any sort of damage to the copyright holder? Can you imagine the big trouble to try to contact every single copyright holder to grant use of a simple image in wikipedia? This way it's better to give up putting images. Which would render wikipedia much poorer. ] 02:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	:It doesn't matter what I think. It matters what the courts think. Using an image from a scientific or educational work without permission harms the author directly: by using the image, we deprive the author of money he should have recieved from selling the right to use it to us. It also harms the author indirectly: by using the image in a way that competes with the author's work containing the image, we deprive him of income from people who would otherwise have purchased his work.
	:You might also wish to read ], which outlines the very limited conditions under which images can be used on Misplaced Pages. Basically, your images violate policy points 1, 2, 6, and the quick test, and possibly point 3. --] 06:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	Hi, Carnildo, thanks for explaining. I'm gonna read carefully the policy. I'm still a bit pissed off and frustrated with what I call "overzeal" or "zealotism". For me, the author should like his work being still considered, specially if the book is long out of print, so no income can be obtained from it anymore. But, as you say, we don't want to do anything illegal. If I can't add other convincing rationale (and this sounds a good one for me), I'll be forced to swallow the images being erased, or struggle to get explicit permission from the editor. ] 14:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	It's been a couple of times this image is tagged by bots and humans. I have explicit permission from the author to use the image in wikipedia. He needs a link to his site as the source, if possible. And ofcourse that is possible!
	And FYI, the fair-use tag is given in conjunction with <pre>{{withpermission}}</pre> tag. You must have seen this if you cared to see it.
	----
	I got permission to use this image in Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages is available in. It also prevents people from re-using Misplaced Pages content. Misplaced Pages 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 doesnt make sense to me (atleast!) for these clauses and <pre>{{withpermission}}</pre> tag existing together in wikipedia. Please explain it properly in the image's talk page and then tag if you can substantiate.
	Either ways next time a bot or human tag the image for deletion, I just don't care about it anymore!!! The article would then go without the image! I am sick of this. I have other better things to do
	I am deleting your <pre>{{no rationale}}</pre> tag once again.
	--<font style="font-size: x-small;color:grey;">K]<font style="color:grey;">AN</font></font>] 07:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	:"With permission" isn't good enough. There are a number of other websites out there that re-use Misplaced Pages's content: permission to use an image on Misplaced Pages doesn't translate into permission for Answers.com to use the image. That's why the image also needs to meet the criteria at ], and why you need to provide an explanation as to why it meets those criteria. --] 09:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	::withpermission says this -> "In addition to (possibly) being usable under fair use, the copyright holder has granted permission for this image to be used in Misplaced Pages. This permission does not extend to third parties."
	::Does this cover your answers.com problem? If not, remove the withpermission template!
	::I stick to my word above; I am not bothered about the image anymore... Thanks! --<font style="font-size: x-small;color:grey;">K]<font style="color:grey;">AN</font></font>] 10:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Visit ] for the special honor section for your OrphanBot. Dare to touch that; I'll list you and your darn bot in AIV. --<font style="font-size: x-small;color:grey;">K]<font style="color:grey;">AN</font></font>] 11:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::Why would I want to touch it? You've picked a perfectly good free-license image for the userbox. --] 19:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::: Anyways I would like to know where I can use the template withpermission. Is it usable at all? --<font style="font-size: x-small;color:grey;">K]<font style="color:grey;">AN</font></font>] 05:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::::The "with permission" template is for situations where the use of the image counts as fair use, ''and'' someone has gotten permission for the image to be used on Misplaced Pages. It can't be used if the image doesn't already meet the criteria at ]. --] 06:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::: Let me be frank. I am not able to understand whatever you are talking. Now there was another picture in the same article I took from UNESCO. what the heck was the problem with that? How old are you, carnildo? Just curious...! --<font style="font-size: x-small;color:grey;">K]<font style="color:grey;">AN</font></font>] 16:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::::How is my age relevant to anything? If it matters, I'm old enough to know how to use a computer, and young enough not to be in my grave.
	::::::If the "other image" you were referring to was ], it was deleted because it was under a license of "no commercial use" or "permission to use on Misplaced Pages, but nowhere else". Neither of those license terms is acceptable. --] 05:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::::: ]. How about all the images under this? snp.org gives permission for "educational purposes", which wikipedia is obviously not. Then this, ]. ], this one? And hundreds and thousands of other images in wikipedia... what are you planning to do about all these... delete and make wikipedia barren? I just hope you'll be old enough soon --<font style="font-size: x-small;color:grey; font-family:cursive ">K]<font style="color:grey;">AN</font></font>] 06:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::::::] dates from February 2004, back before policy was changed to prohibit by-permission and no-commercial-use images. As for specific images, there are roughly 180,000 images that have been claimed as "fair use", and most of them violate fair-use policy. My goal is to have around 50,000 of them deleted in the next year or two. --] 06:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	This image had source info and qualified as public domain. If I upload the picture again, will it get deleted by your bot, and will it be considered an act of vandalism? Removing pictures with credible source information should be considered vandalism itself. {{unsigned|68.153.32.226|14:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)}}
	:If you upload it with proper source information, a proper copyright tag, and evidence showing the copyright tag is correct, it probably won't be deleted. However, I seriously doubt that the image is in the public domain. --] 20:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	== Interesting in writing a new bot? ==
	Hi Carnildo...
	I've been doing extensive work on the removal of fair use images from template and userspace. To date, I've done nearly 800 removals of such violations of ] #9. It's slow work, and repetitive in nature. Thus, a bot seems like a potential replacement for my doing this work. Others are also doing this sort of work, at least in template space. The basic idea is to identify fair use images, see where they are used, and perform removals of those images from userspace and/or template space (really, anything non-main article namespace). There's other additional requirements, but that's the basic outline of what this bot would need to do.
	Would you be interested in crafting such a bot? --] 15:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	:The idea's been floated a few times. The big problems are that OrphanBot isn't very efficient at identifying fair-use images outside of articles, and that it doesn't do templates: they're too easy to break by automated editing. If the bot could be provided with a list of non-article pages that contain fair-use images, then I'd be willing to modify OrphanBot to deal with them. --] 18:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	::] had something almost ready that could do this. I know he also had a tool that could list all fair use images on a userpage and it's supages. However with the toolserver still not quite up to speed with the enwiki database I don't know how reliable such reports would be right now... --] <span style="font-size:75%">]</span> 20:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	== Source info? ==
	What kind of source info needs to be provided for this image? ]. I found it on Flickr with a CC2.0 license, and noted the URL, etc on the image page. I'm new to image uploading, so any help would be appreciated. Also, this is a photo I took and uploaded via Flickr also with a CC2.0 license. ]. Sorry, I'm new to image uploading. --] (]) 21:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	:"Creative Commons" is actually a very broad collection of licenses, some of which are acceptable for Misplaced Pages, and some of which are not. The acceptable licenses are the Creative Commons Sharealike, Attribution, and Attribution-Sharealike licenses. Any Creative Commons license with a "no derivatives" or "no commercial use" clause is not acceptable; it looks like the two images in question were under a "no commercial use" Creative Commons license.
	:As for source information, you need to note the URL of the web page containing the image; if at all possible, you should also include the name of the creator and the date he created it. --] 21:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	== The Bot ==
	Hiya. No I'm not talking about going back to the old mess. I was rather miffed when I wrote that. The bot is doing good work. It just occasionally gets wires crossed, partly because a lot of older images were wrongly tagged, not wrong in themselves, just legit images put on wrongly by newbies. I don't know is there a way to tweak it to distinguish such images from others. In my case I simply uploaded an image and used what I thought was the right pull down menu bit, then when I went into the image immediately afterwards it had a bot tag on it. I felt like screaming "for fuck sake, at least give me time to finish downloading the image and the details before tagging it and plastering a message on my talk page". lol Well I guess that proves the bot is quick!!!
	]]\<sup><font color="blue">]</font></sup> 22:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
	==Non-commercial images==
	Hi, there are heaps of orphaned non-commerical images. Could one of your bots tag them for deletion? Since they are effectively in the same situation os fair use images they really should go. --] 05:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	:One bot, coming up. It'll go through ], ], and ], and tag orphaned images for deletion. If you want, it can also deal with ]. Do you have a tag it should use, or should I just make up a reason to stick on a {{tl|db}} tag? --] 06:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	::db|orphan with incompatible licence should be sufficient. I agree, orphaned used with permission images should also be weeded out. Thanks.--] 06:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::The bot should be ready to run tomorrow. --] 07:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::Awesome, I'm going to orphan (and replace) some more used with permission images to keep it busy. Thanks again,--] 07:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	==Openbot is asking for fair use rationale when it is already provided==
	Hi Carnildo, I uploaded ] and provided the fair use rationale when I stated that this picture shgould be allowed to be used in the article on Harisu to depict the subject more descriptively. Yet the Orphanbot has put the fair use rationale on the pic. I don't know why its done this. I need to know what I need to do to overcome this.
	] 16:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	:It doesn't cover any of the points a rationale needs to. Basically, a fair-use rationale needs to explain why the image meets the criteria at ]. Simply because an image is low-resolution doesn't mean it's fair use. --] 17:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Thats low resolution? --] 17:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	==Recent Edits Made From This IP Address==
	I have recently discovered that various acts of vandalism have occured from my IP address. Measures have been taken to protect this IP address from future use by unauthorized individuals. I apologize for any inconvenience that may have resulted from this.
	==Corrected Image==
	I made changes and corrected the ]. Thanks ].
	--] 17:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	==Orphanbot Tagging==
	I got a message this morning from Orphanbot telling me that ] has no source, but when i checked the page I can very clearly see where the exteranl link is, I even wrote "Source" at the end of it so people would know exactly what it was the moment they saw it. Is this source insufficent, or was their an oversite on the bots part? ] 19:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	:The bot didn't tag it as "no source", it just notified you that it had been tagged. Apparently, ], who , didn't think the source was adequate. --] 20:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	::My mistake. Thank you for clarifing. ] 00:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	==OrphanBot & Logos==
	Please see my reply to your message on ]. In essence I think that OrphanBot should place something in the article from which the image was removed, alerting people to the problem with the image. I believe too many images are being deleted often without anyone really having a chance to determine if the {{tl|no source}} tag is applicable or can be easily corrected. ] 20:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	:This is a frequent suggestion. The person who is most able to correct problems with an image is the uploader, and OrphanBot notifies the uploader as soon as the image comes to its attention. The group of people who are next-most-able to fix problems are those who have the article watchlisted, and they'll find out about the problem when OrphanBot removes the image from the article, two or three days before the image can be deleted. Dropping a message on the talkpage won't help much, as the only people who would get that message that won't get any of the others are random passers-by. --] 07:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	::But I suggested putting something more visible in the article itself (not the talk page). Even people who have pages watchlisted don't necessarily check every edit on every page watched (and if they do, not necessarily within 7 days - I simply don't have the time), and may or may not notice missing images. A visible tag indicating that there was a problem with an image on the page would be more likely to get attention. Other copyright problems are given far more visibility (e.g. {{tl|copyvio}}) in article space before final corrective action (which is usually far more reversible than image deletion) is taken. ] 23:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	== ] image ==
	Hi, could you stop that bot of yours please or at least slow it down? I'm just composing the appropriate tag for the image I uploaded a few minutes ago, and I'm already getting a message telling me the source information or whatever is missing. This is ridiculous. All the best, ] 22:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
	:OrphanBot is supposed to notify people as soon as possible. The majority of problematic images are uploaded by people who have created an account for the sole purpose of uploading an image, and who forget about the account soon after. The goal of OrphanBot's quick notifications is to get a message on the user's talkpage within an hour of the image being uploaded, so there's a chance they'll still be around to get it. --] 07:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	::] your bot cluttered my talk page after only three minutes. Next time this happens I'll delete the image again rather than choose the appropriate tag for it. And you're right, the problem with that kind of automated device is that it can't (or at least doesn't) discriminate between long-term contributors who know what they are doing and newbies who decide to experiment with Misplaced Pages. ] 00:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::As I see it, you've got three options. 1) You could include proper source and license information in the upload summary for the images you upload. 2) You could upload images at about 15 minutes past the hour -- that'll give you 45 minutes before OrphanBot's next pass through the list of recent uploads. 3) I could add you to OrphanBot's list of users to never notify. --] 05:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::Thanks for the information. I'll try (1) and/or (2). ] 22:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	== regd OrphanBot ==
	Hi, while the bot you operate does do very useful (and helpful, when i forget to add licensing tags) stuff, I do feel it tends to overdo it on occassions. For example, today i cooked up screenshots and uploaded for a talk page discussion, while specifying its a screenshot, ur tagged it up. Could it be modified to take a look at the usage of the picture to see if it is being used in article or talk page before tagging. Because talk page articles mostly tend to be self-created and used temporally. Thanks. And if you intend to reply, i would appreciate it on my talk page as this page is too cramped. --]]]]]]] 13:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	Carnildo, why can't we claim fair use if we don't know the copyright holder? If a newspaper prints an image, we don't always know who the copyright holder is, but we can still claim fair use in certain circumstances. What you seem to be implying is that, before we can ever claim fair use, we must write to the source to determine exactly who the copyright holder is, and then must write to that person to have it confirmed, and only then can we claim fair use. This would clearly be prohibitive. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 21:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
	:For an image from a newspaper, we can at least know something about the intended market and use of the image, giving us somewhere to start for evaulating fair-use claims. This image cites as a source what appears to be a fairly random website, which is probably re-using the image from somewhere else. Without knowing the original source, it's impossible to know if the claims of "there is no other way to obtain it" and "it has no commercial value" are correct or not. --] 07:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Yes, I see what you're saying. Okay, I'll look around to see if I can find about where it comes from, or write to the website to ask where they got it, and I'll take it from there. Thanks, ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 07:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::No, it's not a random website, but an official website of ], a disciple of ], and a notable scholar himself. Mr. Kramer received the image directly from Mr. Lewis, who owns a copy of this photograph. Is this sufficient to establish that there is no other wat to get this image? ] <sup>]</sup> 21:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::Owning a copy of the photograph is not the same thing as owning the copyright to the photograph. I've got a newspaper where my photograph is in the middle of the front page, but that doesn't give me the right to do whatever I want with that photograph -- the copyright is still held by the newspaper. --]
	:::::Right, but I'm afraid there is no practical way to determine the Jordanian photographer who owns the copyright. ] <sup>]</sup> 07:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	==delete pictures==
	Hello, I have tagged some pictures - that I uploaded - with the "{{tl| copyrighted }}" tag. This after I found out that "permission-pictures" are no longer allowed at wikipedia. Will these pictures now be deleted automaticly?. Regards ]
	:Not automatically, but sooner or later they'll get swept up by the effort to remove all by-permission images from Misplaced Pages. --] 05:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
	==Image copyright problems==
	I'm pretty sure you know more about image copyright rules and are better at dealing with problem situations than anyone else at Misplaced Pages. Could you have a talk with ]? He has been uploading a number of images, such as ] that he claims are PD because they were taken in Somalia. This might or might not be legally true, however all of them that I have managed to track down come from clearly copyrighted sources published outside of Somalia. He also refuses to disclose the source of the images I have not located. - ] 03:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	:It's legally false. There are a few countries whose copyrights aren't recognized by the US, but Misplaced Pages recognizes them, and it's generally the country of the author or the country of first publication, not the country of authorship, that matters. --] 06:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	==Moyer factory==
	What does this mean that source information is requested? ? That's a scan from an old postcard. What would be the "source information."? The source is the postcard itself, right? I don't understand. ] 06:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	:How old is the postcard? Who created the image? When was it published? Who published it? Was copyright claimed, and if so, was it renewed? If it was scanned from somewhere other than the original postcard, then where? Any detail is useful, but the most important part is when it was published, and by who. --] 06:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	==]==
	Your bot is becoming a nuisance. I uploaded an image ( ]) following the usual rules and it says it's wrong. Please stop this bot or block it or I'll have to take further action. This goes to the other bots as well.
	Thank You.
	] (])
	:The bot flagged it as "fair use without rationale" because, well, the image was tagged as "fair use", but doesn't have an explanation as to why the image is permitted under ]. Also, keep in mind that deliberately falsifying the license status of an image can lead to being banned from Misplaced Pages. --] 08:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	So what license do I use then, smart guy?? I changed it, so leave it alone.
	] (])
	:You changed the license tag, but since you don't hold copyright to the image, you can't change the license. --] 08:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	'''LEAVE THIS IMAGE ALONE!!!!!''' ''''WHAT LISENCE DO I USE THEN????!!!!!''''
	] (])
	:{{tl|imagevio}} sounds good. {{tl|db-owner}} or {{tl|db-norat}} are also reasonable. --] 09:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	'''Oh, Ha Ha!!'''
	] (])
	== Have you dealt with MostWanted05 or the 86.xxxx user?==
	I have no choice, I will report this person to the Misplaced Pages commitee. He choose to continue the "think I own this site" excuse "over-and-over" again! ] Any thoughts? Thanks.
	]. 31 May 2006 04:33 (UTC)
	:I've never interacted with him. OrphanBot's placed a few messages on his talk page, but the same is true of at least 20,000 other users. --] 19:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	I'm a little confused about why this was eventually deleted. I originally uploaded it with the tag ], as it was used in billboards and print advertising. Then I got the orphanbot tag about not being sourced, so I added the URL that I downloaded the image from. Am I missing something here? Sorry, I've edited Misplaced Pages for a while, but I really haven't uploaded many images. --] 15:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	:OrphanBot removed it from the article because the image still had a {{tl|no source}} tag even after you provided the source. When you provide a source, you should remove the tag. --] 19:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	::So to clarify, was the "promotional" tag enough? I don't quite see why it was tagged in the first place. In either case, can I undelete the image and re-add it to the article? Is there some procedure I have to go through? --] 19:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::No special procedure, just remove the tag and stick the image back in the article. And no, the "promotional" tag is not enough. A source needs to be provided so that people can verify that it really is a promotional image. --] 22:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
	== Regarding your....uh, signature, at Tony's RfC ==
	Not sure if you realized, but you also blanked two other comments when you added your flashing banner. I reverted your edit and hope it wasn't your intent to blank or vandalise by it. Good day, ]]]<sup>]</sup> 07:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Odd. After adding my signature, I checked the history to see just how big it was in "diff" view, and it didn't show any blanking. I suspect a bug with respect to edit conflicts. --] 07:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	Funny, but ]-] ] ] 07:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Yes, that's why I signed the talk page rather than the RfC. --] 07:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Re: Image Tagging for Image:NY-25A.png ==
	This was originally a non-copyrighted Misplaced Pages image of the NY 25A shiled in svg form that I had to convert into a png file. I have no idea how to add the proper copyright tag. ----] 9:24, 1 Jun 2006 (EST)
	:For source information, specify the image you converted from. For copyright status, give it the same tag that the original image had. To bring up an image description page so you can edit the description, click on the image or any link to it, and click "edit this page". --] 17:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	== image upload ==
	can't tell you offhand what the source is; i'd check the usn website, if it's the one i think. ] 15:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	==if possible, please remove me from your bot==
	if it is possible, please remove me from your bot. if you have a sort of "no call list" for that sort of thing. I don't like receiving generic messages; I think if you need to tell someone something you should at least have the courtesy of writing it yourself. so please remove me from your list if possible, thanks. --] 16:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	:You've been added to the list. As for writing the messages myself, I'd like to, but OrphanBot hands out around 500 notices a day, and I simply don't have the time. --] 17:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	::That's fine. If you've removed me from your bot list then i am happy, thanks. --] 23:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Bot errors ==
	Please do see to it that your bot is fixed to understand subst, and if it does, that it understands<nowiki>{{PD-retouched-user}}</nowiki>. --]~] 19:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Could you give some examples of where you think the bot is making mistakes? --] 20:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Image:The used20.jpg ==
	Hey there. I was wondering: What exactly was wrong with the tag in begining? Feel free to revert back if I did something wrong, I'm still kinda new to the image tagging dealy. Yours, ] ] <sup>]</sup> 04:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Bot errors==
	I'm not the uploader of the ] even though I got a warning saying that I should have put in the reason for the photo being classified as fair use. See here ]. 05:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	== bad bot ==
	see what your bot did on . You were trying to remove an image had been removed by yourself. ] 09:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	:three times now, there must clearly be a problem somewhere: see . ] 10:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	Hi. According to your bot, the copyright tag {coatofarms} is obsolete. What is the correct tag for coats of arms then? --<font color="blue">]</font> <sup><font color="orange">]</font></sup> 13:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Bot defective ==
	-] 00:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
	:The bot is working just fine. If you read the tag, you'll see that it was tagged for not having ''source'' information -- that is, a statement saying where you got the image from and who the copyright holder is. --] 02:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
	::This gets really annoying especially when I create these screenshots not to mention having to correct like 60 of these just because of this. Anyway you can omit it's botting for the string "the pretender" ? There's no point in me saying I am the source on every single one of them, especially since I did (and am) create (creating) the entire page. -] 03:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
	==Arms==
	How can a coat of Arms legally appear on Wickipedia? are there any exceptions see ]. I have already read your comments regarding the policy in Europe. Perhaps the images could legally appear on Misplaced Pages under fair use, however, with a brief explanation of the laws and customes regulating heraldry. For instance, the image of the arms could appear on Misplaced Pages, however, that does not grant anyone the right to bear the Arms i.e. on stationary or display the Arms, as thier own. Unless of course they have a right to the Arms. Even re producing the Blazon description with image software, by a third party, does not authorize the use of the Arms.
	I am an American who has a right to Arms, and I use the Arms and crest as a Logo. Perhaps I could use Logo tag, in conjunction with the Coat of Arms tag, for the arms of ]? ] 4 June 2006 (UTC)
	:See . --] 04:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Delete ==
	Hi OrphanBot. You left a message on my discussion. Can you please delete this image ]. I uploaded it unintentionally. Thanks! --] 08:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Graeme Dott Image ==
	Hi, Images is one area of Misplaced Pages where the policy is unclear and difficult to apply. The image in question comes from the BBC website. The BBC is one of the world's largest broadcasters. News and publicity is its business. If use of that image (which it must own of course) is unfair, then please delete it, along with that of Dennis Taylor and Steve Davis which have the same origin. The world snooker championship 1985 page also links to the Dennis Taylor pic. I believe. Please talk back as required but if my uploading of the Dott image is illegal, I will never try again with images. Thanks, ] 08:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
	== image ==
	Hi, I'm just visiting from the nl wikipedia, where we have a whole different policy about images. I saw your bot making a comment here though : ]. As you can see by my reply, I think there's a similar problem with ]. This is a logo so it should at least be tagged as copyrighted. You do allow logo's here don't you? ('cause we don't on nl). Which other steps should be taken to fix this? (I'm guessing user ] isn't really around much anymore...) thanks, ] 11:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Logos are perfectly fine in an article on whatever it's a logo for. Except in the rare case where a logo is no longer covered by either copyright or trademark law, such images should be tagged as {{tl|logo}} or with a more specific version of the template. --] 04:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
	::Okay, tagged it as logo, thanks! ] 15:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
	== robertmarlow image ==
	I put where I got the image from, and yet, it got taken down, anyway.
	I don't really know what I am doing, and the page on copyright information is way too confusing.
	what else do I need to add.
	:The information looks good. What you need to do now is remove the {{tl|no license}} template. --] 04:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
	ok thanks. I appreciate the help.
	== About deleting images ==
	I am just in the middle of the process of deleting images that are orphan with incompatible licence as tagged by Orphanbot. I wonder, does the bot remove the links of deleted images from the articles or do I have to do that manually? Regards, ''']]''' 11:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
	:If OrphanBot has tagged it as "orphan with incompatible license", then at the time the image was tagged, there were no links to that image in any article. --] 18:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
	:: I know. I was just wondering about the other iamges, like the ones that have been without a licence for a week. When I delete them, do I have to remove the links or your bot can do that? Sorry for bothering, I'm a fresh admin. --''']]''' 19:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
	::: You should always remove images from articles before deleting them; I'm quite certain orphanbot doesn't do anything once the image has been deleted. Usually, orphanbot has done the removal by the eighth day, but occasionally that step is up to you. '''''×'''''] 19:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
	::: OrphanBot doesn't do anything with deleted images. They're too hard to find and too hard to work with. --] 19:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::: Ok, I get it. Thanks for answering. --''']]''' 19:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
	==4400 Source of image==
	I recently uploaded ] and stated the status that I captured the frame from the 4400 DVD however your bot marked it as not having a source even though I cited one I am going to remove the tag your bot placed on the page unless you have some valid objections, please leave me a message on my talk page and let me know ] 00:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Question about copyright ==
	Hi Carnildo,
	I was wondering, under what licence would have on the Commons? It says at the bottom of the page, ''Any use of this file must include "(C) Foley, Michael 2003/The Streets of Kabul"'', which gives me the idea that he gives people permission, so should I still contact him? Thanks in advance. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">]</span> 01:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
	:That sounds like a license of {{tl|Attribution}}, but you probably still should contact him to make sure he lets people use it freely. --] 05:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
	::Thanks, I couldn't find any way to contact him however. I've listed it on ]. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">]</span> 05:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Delete Image:385px-Florida 50.png ==
	Please delete my recently added image 385px-Florida 50.png. This was a failed attempt to add the image from one page to another. ----] 13:12, 10 Jun 2006 (EST)
	== Image:Largo hotel pmr 01.jpg ==
	Hi, despite clicking the appropriate copyleft indicators, my image still is untagged. How do I fic=x this. Thanks, ] | ] 15:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Wording in case of fair use rationale ==
	Hi there fellow programmer. The OrphanBot just informed me that my newly uploaded image lacks rationale, which is a nice shot, but a bit not precise. I understand that OrphanBot analises wording of the rationale provided and decides if it is legitimate... which is nice, but, if it finds out that the rationale is not legitimate, then it shouldn't say there's no rationale, but that rationale doesn't seem to be valid. An example: . The image had a rationale. Now, we can discuss if it is a good one (I'd say it is, but then again, I uploaded the image, so I'm supposed to think the rationale is a good one), but it is sure as hell an existent one. Therefore, I got a bit annoyed when the bot the image lacked rationale... and I think a bit of rewording of the message wouldn't hurt. ;-)
	The second thing I wanted to point out is the fact that OrphanBot reacts in no time. I for instance uploded the image and only then provided the rationale. Maybe a 5 minute offset wouldn't be so bad... --] 18:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
	:It looks like you added the rationale between when the bot checked for a rationale and when it applied the tag, since you managed to include several of the words that OrphanBot's looking for. This is the first time I've seen that happen since OrphanBot started checking fair-use images, but I'll see what I can do about preventing it. If you've got better wording for the message, I'm open to suggestions.
	:As for reaction time, OrphanBot processes images in a batch of 150 every hour, ignoring the 20 most recent uploads. You uploaded the image right before OrphanBot started checking, and probably right before someone uploaded a whole bunch, thus the quick reaction by the bot. --] 05:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
	== ==Very Nice Bot== ==
	٭٭٭٭٭
	Five star program!
	You have created a very good bot that, despite criticism, does what it is meant to do. It conforms all images to the Wikimedia standard, and anything ignorant of those standards, in my opinion, deserves deletion. ] 03:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
	== image upload - copyright ==
	I have uploaded a bunch of waterfall pictures I have taken on my camera. While uploading, I have tried to give as liberal a copyright notice as possible... I don't care who/how the picrutes are used (I don't own and don't want to own any of the waterfalls :-) ). Still folks keep bouncing my pictures - don't know how to move on.
	I want these pictures be restored or I can load them again - but, can some one point me to an easy page that suggests best possible selections to make in image upload page - so that no one will ever delete it for copyright/ownership reasons. I don't even need credit for the pictures I have taken (I am not a professional photographer - let these pictures be in place until some professional puts up a better picture there).
	:Mark'em as Public Domain ({{tl|PD-self}}), and strongly assert that they are your own work. That's the best I can think of, anyway. --] ] ] 00:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
	:I assume you're talking about ], ], ], and ]? I've re-uploaded the last three for you and given them appropriate copyright notices, but I don't have a copy of the first.
	:For future reference, when you upload images you've created, select "Copyrighted, author releases all rights" from the license dropdown menu, and add a brief description of where and when you created the image to the "summary" box on the upload form. --] 06:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Alternative to copyrighted images ==
	Do you know if use of images is up for discussion at WikiMania, it should be, since it is difficult to get non-copyrighted images for many articles, yet images make a significant addition to an article value. Google manages to hold small copies of all images, could WP take a similiar approach? Finally, take a look at ] for an alternative approach of mine using a template to make it easy for the reader to view images via Google in one click. If there is a more relevant area for this discussion, let me know.--] 00:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
	:I'm not involved in WikiMania, so I have no idea if images are up for discussion there. Google manages to hold copies of all images because it's a search engine/index: it's completely indiscriminant in what it holds thumbnails of, and it doesn't use them for anything but searching. --] 06:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Scottish Deerhound image ==
	Carnildo,
	If your message concerns the Scottish Deerhound image, placed as a result of a request by "Pharaoh Hound", the source is ours. We bred the Deerhound, and the photo has been used by countless people - both with and without our permission.
	The creator was '''Linda Lundt'''.
	Please see http://www.fernhill.com/deerhounds.htm
	the image of '''Fernhill's Kendra'''.
	This image is definitely in the public domain.
	You have our permission to use it if you or "Pharaoh Hound" wish to do so.
	Richard Hawkins and Barb Heidenreich
	bh@fernhill.com
	www.fernhill.com/
	== Question about your revert to Daniel Daly ==
	Hello. I noticed that you just reverted ] with the edit comment "Revert copyvio from Everything2 to last clean version". However, I find no edits from any user by the name of ] in the edit history. Was your reversion in error? You reverted to a version by Bunns USMC. &mdash;] (]) @ 02:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
	:] is the website the copyvio was copied from. --] 02:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
	::Thanks. I found the that you referenced. &mdash;] (]) @ 03:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
	== OrphanBot no longer orphanding images? ==
	I've noticed that images tagged as "no source" and "no license" rarely seems to be removed from articles by the time it's time to delete them these days. Lazy bastard that I am I kinda miss that feature. Is it just a temporary thing while the bot is busy taggign images that lack fair use rationales and license tags or did someone edit the templates to throw the bot off or something? --] <span style="font-size:75%">]</span> 07:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
	:I've been busy these past two weeks. OrphanBot's handling of new uploads is completely automatic -- I just need to go through the logs periodically and add the new tags it's found to the lists of tags -- but the removal of images from articles needs to be started manually by me. --] 17:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
	::Well, now that it's possible to undelete images, OrphanBot no longer needs to save images it's orphaning, and can be run from a computer with a smaller hard drive. I'll be moving it over to the server that's already handling new uploads and automating it. --] 20:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
	==]==
	You are due kudos for your ''to balance out some of the silly oppose votes'' vote justification, in which I joined (except as to the ''silly'' appellative; even as ''silly'' make be applicable, there are, I think, more decorous phrasings). Often at RfA I find that I'd likely not support a candidacy but object even more strongly to the rationale of those opposing, such that I don't want to oppose lest, my averments to the contrary notwithstanding, I should be lumped in with those opposing on grounds with which I take issue. I typically then support with only an intimation of my reasoning, but I'm glad you've made explicit that sometimes, in order to express disagreemnent with the ostensible consensus reasoning for ''oppose'', one must support a candidate about whom he/she would otherwise be neutral. Unfortunately, we haven't a barnstar for properly, if untowardly, identifying silliness, so you'll have to settle for my compliments. ] 22:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Reward Board offer ==
	]
	I uploaded a color image of the USS Pennsylvania. I believe this fulfills your request of a color image of a piece of World War 2 equipment. If it does, could you get a photograph of ] in Bellevue, Washington? If this is not possible, then please let me know. Thanks! ] 02:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
	:The boat's a bit bigger than the sort of thing I was expecting, but it certainly meets my requirements. :-)
	:Bellevue is a bit far from here. I've got better access to eastern Washington and northern Idaho. I might be able to get there in late August, but even then, it's about three hours out of my way. Do you have something else you want a picture of? --] 06:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
	::Would the ] work better? ] 20:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::I should be able to get there next Saturday. Anything in particular you want me to photograph? --] 22:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::Not really, just whatever looks like it could fit in the article. ] 23:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Overview from the north works! ] 16:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Self-created Images ==
	I don't understand why you bot has a problem with the "I, the creator of this image, release all rights" tag. That tag needs no more info and shouldn't be tagged for deletion. Who made it? The user. The pronoun "I" takes care of credit issues. Furthermore, we don't need the persons real name because they "released all rights." <small>({{unsigned|Atfyfe}})</small>
	:Which image are you referring to? The bot shouldn't be tagging such images as unsourced, so if there's a bug, I'd like to find it. --] 06:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
	::*Many of the images I post with the, {{PD-self}}
	::tag, your bot labels as unsourced despite the fact that the "{PD-self}" tag says "I the creator". I think your bot needs to be modified to exclude the images with this tag.
	:::Could you please name at least one image where this happened? I can't find any image in your upload log where this is the case. --] 08:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
	== ==Aurora Image== ==
	Sorry about that. The reason I did not tag the image is because after I uploaded it I decided that it wasn't the angle I was particularly looking for. You can go ahead delete it. Thanks. ] 13:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Orphanbot does not always warn original uploader ==
	After I edited ], I mistakenly and Orphanbot warning instead of the original uplaoder (]), just to let you know. ] 01:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
	:OrphanBot does its best to figure out which uploads represent new images, and which ones represent adjustments to existing images, but it doesn't always get it right. --] 02:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
	== About your e-mail to me. ==
	I put the still photo tag on the photo liked in that copyright tags at wikipedia.
	] 4:54PMEDT June 19, 2006.
	== A suggestion for Orphanbot ==
	Would it be possible for Orphanbot to place a link to the image removed in the edit summary when it removes an image from an article? Just pipe linking it from the word "image" would do the job. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 07:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Done. --] 18:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
	::Much appreciated. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 06:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Random thoughts on a new feature ==
	Hi. First off, top work from the bot, it certainly saves a lot of time. However, there are still a lot of images that appear to be tagged correctly, but that are copyvios. They sit there for a week with the copyvio template, and then it falls to admin to orphan the image and then delete it - removing the links to the images can take a very long time, and the backlog at ] is very hard to keep under control. Can you think of a relatively easy way of automating the orphaning? One thought would be to create a category into which images which admins are about to deleted could be placed for orphanbot to orphan. That may need an extra check by the bot to make sure it's genuine - maybe that it was placed there by a specified user. There may be other ways to automate the process. Any thoughts? ] <sup> ] </sup> 08:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
	:How about listing the images on a protected page? That way, only admins can nominate images for orphaning. Or you could go with the category idea, and not worry about abusive listings -- the bot keeps a log of every page it's removed an image from, so undoing removals is fairly easy. --] 20:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
	A protected page sounds like a good idea. Personally, I would be happy with it being an open listing, but suspect more paranoid members of the community would focus on the ''potential'' for abuse, rather than the ''actual'' positives such a system would bring.
	So, if we created a page like ] OrphanBot could patrol the list and remove any links? I guess it would be helpful if it also indicated in the list when it had done so to show the image can be deleted.
	] <sup> ] </sup> 08:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
	:OrphanBot can no more edit protected pages than any other non-admin can. What the bot could do is create a separate listing of images it's taken care of. --] 06:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	A seperate page seems entirely sensible and just as good as removing the list it gets its input from. ] <sup> ] </sup> 08:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Tv_30_second_to_fame_south_africa.JPG ==
	I wonder if your bot could be made smart enough not to notify people who upload a new version of an ] ''after'' it has already been tagged as having no source, or who (like me) upload a new version and ''then'' tag it? —] <small>(])</small> 14:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Image:725f024128a06c961acf5010.L.jpg ==
	Could you please delete it? I didn't mean to upload it under that name, it's really the artwork for ]'s ], which has the same image. --] 16:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
	== My RfA ==
	]
	Hello Carnildo, and thanks for voting in ], which passed with a tally of (68/19/3). I appreciated your comments, which I hope to take on board in order to gain your respect in my work as an administrator. Best of luck in your continued editing of the encyclopedia! ] 19:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Image:NY 101.gif ==
	I tried to change the copyright tag, but Misplaced Pages wouldn't let me do it. ----] 8:09, 21 June 2006 (EST)
	== BLITZKRIEG.jpeg ==
	What was wrong with source I provided?The link I posted is where the image is from.] 08:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	==Strong at the Heart Image==
	HI: not sure why you have removed this image from ]. It is a book cover, which is OK for Misplaced Pages anyway, but I have the permission of the author Carolyn Lehman to use it too. Please explain... I thought I'd made this clear when I re-uploaded the image. regards ]
	==Hey there==
	Don't reply to this if you don't feel like it, but I was just looking at orphanbot's talk page and was highly ammused by all the editors who thought they were abusing/warning/arguing with a real person :). Keep up the good work. ] 12:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Yes, some of those responses are pretty funny. I especially like the guy who declared war on the bot. --] 06:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	==Copyright Problem with Geocacher's Creed==
	Thank you very much for your helpful (and quick!) comment at ] regarding my concern about ]. As a result, I took your advice and reported it on ]. ] 02:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
	==] picture at Corfu museum==
	Can you please explain tag? Thanks. ] 06:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	==]==
	What tag should this image fall under if I have permission from the creator to use it? I'm in the process of finding out if this image was created by the creator of the album (he gave me permission to use his images, but said that some of them weren't from books or websites, while others he took himself). If he did indeed create this image, what tag should be used? &mdash; ] ] | <small>]</small> • <small>]</small> 06:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Simple permission isn't good enough. See the Frequently Asked Questions section at the top of this page for more information. --] 06:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	== You've got a bug ==
	At this edit , OrphanBot removed a link to ] from ] even though I clearly licensed the photo to WP under the GFDL. Please note the bug and fix it when you get the chance. I just caught this when I revisited the San Quentin article for the first time in two months. --] 07:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	:No bug. OrphanBot never removed that image from the article. --] 08:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	::Never mind. I reviewed the page history again, more carefully and you're right. Sorry for bothering you! --] 08:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Oprhanbot removed an image ==
	Hi there. I'm afraid I don't understand why OrphanBot removed from ]. It says it has no source information, but it's an album cover. Do they also need source? And if so, what kind of source would it need? Thanks. --] (]) 12:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Most album covers don't need any further source information, since it's immediately obvious from looking at the image what album it's from. That image doesn't even look like an album cover. --] 06:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	::Sorry, I now realize OrphanBot didn't put the source-tag on the image. Is this ok for a source: ? Thanks. By the way: it certainly doesn't look like an album cover, that's part of the appeal. Check out some of his other covers: . --] (]) 09:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::Looks fine to me. --] 19:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Picture of WWII Military Equipment ==
	Hey.
	I read your request for a WWII military equipment picture.
	I've got an old food box used by german troops that I bought at a museum in Oslo. If you want, I can take a 6mpx picture of it, but note that I've gotta find it first since I got no idea where it is right now. :P
	(Since I'll probably forget about this, post a reply on my own talk page please :P)
	] 13:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Is there an article that the image would be useful in? --] 06:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Bot question ==
	Your bot page states that it removes images from pages after they've been marked as ] for at least a week. How does it know how long an image has been marked for? The tag isn't date sensitive, like subst:nld or subst:nsd, is it? --] (]) 22:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	:The bot looks at the edit history for the image and image talk page. If there haven't been any edits in the past seven days, it means the tag was applied more than seven days ago. --] 06:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	::Got it. Thanks. --] (]) 17:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Deleted Image CBPatGrissomPkwy.jpg ==
	Your bot deleted my image CBPatGrissomPkwy.jpg. It seems that others besides myself are having a problem with this. If you could restore my image, it would be appreciated. It came from the Horry County government website at http://www.horrycounty.org.
	:According to the , the image was deleted by ], so you should contact him about undeleting it. Be sure to provide information on the image's copyright status -- the image was deleted for not specifying that. --] 05:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	==Fair use rationale for ]==
	Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under ] but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Misplaced Pages articles constitutes fair use.
	Please go to ] and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
	: ]. just left me a nasty message. I honestly don't understand why it is being nasty to me; I did include an extensive rationale for Fair use of that image, but somhow OrphanBot doesn't understand what I am saying. Can you please straighten this out? ] 02:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	== About the Image Problem of Dan Woods (Degrassi) ==
	I put <nowiki>{{Promophoto}}</nowiki> tag on the Dan Woods image. I've got it from Degrassi Boards, I requested a picture of Raditch, then a fellow sent me a picture of Dan Woods as Raditch on Degrassi Boards http://www.degrassi-boards.com and saved the photo on my mothers computer and then I uploaded the photo here at Misplaced Pages. That's the truth.
	] 10:59PM EDT June 25, 2006
	==Sending message to wrong user==
	Hey. OrphanBot dropped me a message for ] asking me to give source, but I wasn't the initial uploader, I just edited it. Can you modify OrphanBot to direct such messages to the appropriate person? Thanks. ] 16:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	Hi,<br>
	Would please delete the image and get over with it. Your ] keeps leaving messages. I'm ok with it's being deleted, until I find the proper source, creator and a proof it comes from a promotional kit I will upload a new one. For now, I'd suggest you just delete this image. Thank you. -- ] 16:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
	== OrphanBot ==
	I would just like to yet you know (since it seems so hated) that i '''''like''''' this bot! Since most the images it tags and remove have no right to be here (no source/copyright) - it helps make life a little easier for admins and tagging users. Orphaning is already done - and images already tagged and ready for deletion (if the tagging and orphaning was correct) in 7 days. The log of where it removed the image from is a good feature (I would even say required!) So I just thought I would let you know that some people do like it :P ]] 19:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
	== malfunction ==
	Your bot is obviously malfunctioning--] 19:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
	:How so? --] 21:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
	it tagged for deletion a perfectly good image that had all necasary copywrite info
	:Which image? --] 23:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
	]--] 23:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
	::<small>reformatted by me to link properly and refer to proper image name</small> ] (]) 12:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::Oh, and by the way, the bot's working, it got him to tag a previously untagged image. ] (]) 12:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	I did source the image in the summery :(. ] 10:11, 29 June 2006.
	== Fix ==
	Fix your bot it is malfunctioning. ] 15:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Malfunctioning? How so? --] 17:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Tired of getting messages ==
	"Bot"? Sounds like a truncated term for fascism. And I see Carnildo even got a treat from his master. It's stuff like this that's ruining Misplaced Pages. Stop! ] 15:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Are you requesting that I add you to the bot's "do not notify" list? --] 17:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
	==Call off the bot==
	I provided a rationale for ], and the bot keeps reposting the message. There is no indication given of what specifically is wrong. Also, please take me off the notify list. --] 08:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
	:You've been added to the "do not notify" list. --] 18:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
	== That's just a stupid picture. ==
	I made it. I wanted to put it on my userpage.
	Dear Carnildo!
	Your bot has removed about 12 pictures from the 'Budapest' page where I have been uploading to for a fairly long time. Allegedly, the reason was the lack of copyrights. I believe I have provided sufficient information as I always provided wikipedia.org with the source of the file and the creator of the file if it was possible. I would like to ask you, if possible, to restore the page to what it was like July, 2, 2006 (around 12:00 am).
	Sincerely,
	Dome
	:Who are you and what images are you talking about? The ones I checked were pretty clear copyright violations, or had no source information whatsoever. --] 18:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
	== Bounty? ==
	Always such a pleasure to visit your talkpage. Anyway, didn't you have a bounty up for writing FAs that use only freely-licensed media? ] 22:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
	:I did. It expired on December 31, and I decided not to renew it. --] 18:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
	==Image backlogs==
	Hello. Do you think it would be possible for OrphanBot to go around all of the image backlogs (no source, no tag, no fair use rationale) and remove all of the images from the categories that they are in? It would be much easier for admins to go around and quickly delete them from there, rather than having the go to the article and remove it there, which is just a waste of time when a bot can do it! I have also put up a notice on ]; you might wish to comment on the matter. Thanks and regards, <font color="#007FFF">]</font>''']'''<font color="#007FFF">]</font>|<sup><font color="orange">]</font></sup> 13:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
	:The bot usually does this. There are certain situations it can't handle, such as images in templates or some infoboxes, but it should be removing around 90% of images from articles. It doesn't deal with the no-rationale categories -- there are usually only a half-dozen images in each day's category, and I don't know if it would be appropriate for the bot to deal with untagged images -- 99% of those images were tagged by the bot in the first place. --] 18:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
	== Images ==
	I have recently loaded some images on. I have been todl that they should not be on there and i agree. Would it be possible for you to delete ALL my images and if you can can you let me know how?
	Vanessabu. Thanks.
	==References on Homeland Security Advisory System==
	I deleted the refrences because they were now defunct, and led to 404 pages, but you reverted. Is that how it should be? Just asking. ] 15:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
	:Yes. It's basic academic honesty to let people know where the information came from, so citations of web pages should be kept even if the page itself is missing. Among other things, there's a good chance that the page can still be found at the ], or for online news articles, in the paper's print archives. --] 18:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
	==Ucrsorority.jpg misrepresented as GNU-licenced==
	The image is actually a publicity photo owed by the university, as are most of the other photos on the University of California, Riverside article. Some time ago I nominated these photos for deletion, but only this one was ever removed. User Insert-Belltower has since re-uploaded it. The origonal internet source of the image is located here: --] 22:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
	== Orphanbot on images tagged by Bogdangiusca ==
	Please stop running Orphanbot on images tagged by Bogdangiusca, he does not follow the proper procedure and doesn't notify the uploader, thus putting images to be deletion without any chance for it to be fixed. ] 03:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
	:If he hasn't notified the uploader, then the bot should do it for him. --] 18:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
	== Nice work ==
	Nice work with OrphanBot. It seems to keep Misplaced Pages a lot "freer" - it wouldn't be good to be the "The Copyviolating Encylcopedia", but also it's just good practice to include details like original creator and source even for now-P.D. images (especially since these details actually determine whether the P.D. claim is any good!) and to give details like date and location when uploading self-taken photographs. The summary at the top of your talk page is excellent, I shall be directing people towards it in future. I also noticed that the "baby Hitler" photo that your bot got attacked with lacks any source information (so there's no way to verify if it really is 70 years p.m.a.) so I nsd'd it at Commons. :-)
	What I wondered if you might consider is using OrphanBot to leave a note on article talk pages, before removing them from the article. Since this would notify those who have watchlisted the article before it is "damaged" (as people seem to call it), it might reduce the heat and surprise factors a little. I don't know how feasible this is given the way you operate but it might cut down the flak a little. ] 01:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
	:My concern is that it won't have a very good cost-benefit ratio. Adding a notice to the article talk page will take OrphanBot an additional two to three hours a day, and I suspect it will just lead to tens of thousands of article talk pages containing nothing but floods of image deletion notices, just like there are tens of thousands of user talk pages with nothing but deletion notices. --] 18:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
	== Moved images from Ashdod Port topic ==
	Hi.
	You've removed images from topic. The lisencing there probably was incorrect, since it was one of my first topics.
	I'll restore those images with actual licensing.
	Thank You. ] 05:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
	==Bill of Rights==
	Thank you for reinforcing how much twaddle is made in Misplaced Pages every day, it was very frustrating trying to explain how much needs to be deleted rather than improved on. ] 01:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
	:At least for article twaddle, there are procedures for dealing with it. I'm working on image uploads right now, and there are about a thousand "I found this picture on the web and thought it would look good in my article" uploads a day, and no easy way to deal with them. --] 18:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Latest revision as of 00:05, 19 November 2024

If you're here about an image, try asking your question at Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages use it in an article), and does not permit #3 (which is what permits us to distribute Misplaced Pages, and what permits people to re-use Misplaced Pages content).

I got permission to use this image in Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages is available in. It also prevents people from re-using Misplaced Pages content. Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages is non-commercial, so that means it's okay, right?

The Wikimedia Foundation, the organization that runs Misplaced Pages, is registered as a non-profit organization. That doesn't mean it's noncommercial, though: the German Misplaced Pages, for example, sells copies of the encyclopedia on CD-ROM as a fundraising measure. Further, Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages is educational, so that means it's okay, right?

Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages's coverage of popular culture. It's best to stay away from images with such vague terms.

Further, Misplaced Pages 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 May 29, 2009 to January 11, 2012 January 12, 2012 to October 8, 2013

File:Indent-example-opera-linux.png missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

• File:Indent-example-opera-linux.png

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 04:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Why was Image deleted by ImageRemovalBot?

Hi. The file LambdaOrionisRing.jpg was removed from article Sh2-264. Although it had the appropriate copyright tag (in my view). It was copied from the Italian version of the article, where it was stated that wikisky had licensed it for use within Misplaced Pages. My mistake probably (but which?). Thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by CMBhuman (talk • contribs) 08:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Fastily deleted it because it was licensed for use only in Misplaced Pages. Images in Misplaced Pages need to either be licensed under a free-content license or usable under the non-free content policy. --Carnildo (talk) 01:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

image reinstatement Concetta headshot.jpg

Wikimedia administrators, Copyrights for this image are held by Concetta Antico and with this email she gives permission for use of File:Concetta headshot.jpg on wiki page Concetta Antico. URL for image is

ConcettaAntico.com

I make the wiki edit to reinstate use of the file on the wiki page by request of Concetta Antico. I send this email by request,giving permission for use of the image by the copyrights holder.

Neither Use of this image , nor reinstatement of it on the wiki constitute a conflict as I have no financial or legal ties to the page or its contents. I will continue my right to edit the page for inaccuracies and omissions.

I submit this email per request of Concetta Antico as a personal favor.

KAJameson (talk) 23:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Nice bot for identify the missing license tag. Good luck. FlourishDNA (talk) 13:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Question/feature request

When removing an image can you include who deleted the file? Werieth (talk) 20:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

W O Saunders Image needing copyright tag

Hello, Have added a copyright tag for this image - I need to be careful to follow protocols - how do I delete the instructions to delete the image? User:Parsonsc1 (talk) 9:29, 23 December 2014

ImageRemovalBot

Hello, could you chime in at "Bot edit war" over at WP:BON? One of the bots in question is ImageRemovalBot; I've asked about a change to its instructions, although I'm nowhere near confident that this would be the right course, since it may be working perfectly fine here. Nyttend (talk) 22:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

warnings!

Hi,

Since the 7 July 2014 the bot appears to be having issues and logging mostly warnings and not removing files. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 18:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Bot has been un-stuck and should now be working properly. --Carnildo (talk) 21:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

ANB discussion

There is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive265#Move War at History of the Jews in Nepal, and RFC review that concerns you because you were recently involved with one or more of the related Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/History of the Jews in Nepal, Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2014 June 30 (History of the Jews in Nepal), Talk:History of the Jews in Nepal#RfC: Should we change article name to 'Judaism in Nepal'?. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals) Media Viewer RfC

You are being notified because you have participated in previous discussions on the same topic. Alsee (talk) 16:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

RM notification

Since you have participated in at least one Requested Move or Move Review discussion, either as participant or closer, regarding the title of the article currently at Sarah Jane Brown, you are being notified that there is another discussion about that going on now, at Talk:Sarah Jane Brown#Requested move #10. We hope we can finally achieve consensus among all participating about which title best meets policy and guidelines, and is not too objectionable. --В²C ☎ 17:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

neutral RfC notification

Template_talk:Succession_box#RfC has a discussion on succession box usage. You had previously noted or opined at Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 April 6#Template:NYRepresentatives thanks. Kraxler (talk) 17:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Trinity (nuclear test)

I have re-nominated Trinity (nuclear test) as a Featured Article Candidate. As you participated in the previous nomination as a reviewer, I thought you might want to check that all the points that you made have been addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:CSS Virginia article that you authored in 2004.

Hello, Carnildo.

My name is Rick Jensen. I was doing some reading and research into the United States' first ironclads when I discovered your article on the Talk page of the CSS Virginia web page.

I would like to add the start and finish dates for the completion of the reconstruction from the USS Merrimack into the CSS Virginia to the article's web page. However, I do not know where you found your information for your article. So, I am reluctant to change the current page without being able to cite a reference for the dates.

Any assistance that you could give me would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Rick J. Portland, Oregon <03-FEB-2015> Jensenr629 (talk) 02:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

ImageTaggingBot

Hey,

Any chance you could set up some form of automatic archiving on the bot's talk page - it is really too long to navigate. If not, I may consider doing so, as it is far too long for me to read through to find if my issue has been reported (Tagging files with a valid non-free use rational with missing data). Thanks, Mdann52 (talk) 10:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

ImageTaggingBot bug?

The bot tagged (twice) a file I uploaded (a college crest) as having no licensing data, although I have given it a Non-free use rationale logo template for its licensing. Is there a bug with the bot or did I do somoething wrong? Hansi667 (Neighbor Of The Beast) 13:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

@Hansi667: this edit fixed it. You should include a general "copyrighted" tag as well now. Mdann52 (talk) 17:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The {{Non-free use rationale}} family of templates aren't considered copyright tags. You need to include a suitable template from Misplaced Pages:File copyright tags/Non-free as well. --Carnildo (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, Carnildo. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Hi there. I am contacting you because you are mentioned in an article I am writing. I have sent you an email about it. As the article is likely to garner a great deal of attention, please can you give the email your most urgent attention? Vordrak (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

ImageRemovalBot not working?

Hi, I just noticed a lot more images than normal building up in Category:Articles with missing files and check the bots logs and its showing "Logging warning message" > "*Previous run is taking longer than normal" - looks like it may need a kick. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 20:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Bot has been kicked. It should catch up over the course of the day. --Carnildo (talk) 21:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 22:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Removal of two images in the "Skaggs Family"

I don't know why you removed the two images that you did, one that pictured the first Skaggs-Safeway name and its first president, MB Skaggs, and one of a picture of both MB and his wife. I received written permission to use both of those images without restriction so, unless I failed to tag the images correctly, they SHOULDN'T have been deleted. The first one is the ONLY image showing that Safeway Stores began as Skaggs-Safeway, a very important point in the history! I can't now find the images because you have deleted them. Please tell me why! Thanks, Don Nielson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Nielson (talk • contribs) 21:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

FairuseBot not working?

Hi. I am a WP:BAG member. FairuseBot seems to have stopped editing since 2011. Why is that? -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

A bug in how MediaWiki handles image redirects caused the bot to stop working properly, and I haven't gotten around to fixing it. --Carnildo (talk) 19:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

1988 Yellowstone fires

Are you sure that the redirect is useful? Xx236 (talk) 07:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, because that's what I typed in to my browser's search bar to try to find the article. --Carnildo (talk) 08:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

ImageTaggingBot parsing

I was amused (albeit also concerned) to see ImageTaggingBot put {{untagged}} on this, when there is a declaration of CC-BY-SA 2.0 two lines above it. I copy and pasted the copyright status into the wizard from the original file on Commons (this is a crop of the original for a close-up in an article). I assume the bot isn't designed to parse text in this manner? Ritchie333 14:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Correct, the bot can't parse free-form text. {{untagged}} used to be a template that indicated just that -- "none of the templates on this page is a copyright tag, but there's some free-form text that I think might be a license" -- but about three years ago someone decided to merge it with {{di-no license}}. --Carnildo (talk) 23:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

File removal

Hi, in some cases your bot hides images with the message "Deleted image removed:", any special reason why they are not outright deleted from the articles? TherasTaneel (talk) 21:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Many, many years ago, when the bot was first approved, consensus was that it should comment the images out rather than deleting them entirely. There have been a few efforts to change that since then, but none has managed to gain consensus. --Carnildo (talk) 00:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

ImageRemovalBot stopped?

Hi again, just come across a lot of images deleted today that didn't get removed by ImageRemovalBot - checked it's contribs and it's not done anything since yesterday morning. Just thought I'd let you know. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 19:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Power outage took down the computer running the bot. I'm taking the opportunity to do some hardware maintenance, and the bot should be up and working its way through the backlog by tomorrow. --Carnildo (talk) 23:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 19:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY is being revisited: How should Misplaced Pages refer to transgender individuals before and after their transition?

You are being contacted because you contributed to a recent discussion of MOS:IDENTITY that closed with the recommendation that Misplaced Pages's policy on transgender individuals be revisited.

Two threads have been opened at the Village Pump:Policy. The first addresses how the Manual of Style should instruct editors to refer to transgender people in articles about themselves (which name, which pronoun, etc.). The second addresses how to instruct editors to refer to transgender people when they are mentioned in passing in other articles. Your participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

More bot things

I must be going crazy. What's going on here? — Earwig  10:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing on that image description page that the bot recognizes as a source. You should provide either a "source" or "owner" parameter for {{Non-free use rationale title-card}}. The bot doesn't consider the default value to be acceptable source information, because it usually isn't. --Carnildo (talk) 20:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, the owner, that's what I was forgetting. Thanks, fixed now. I'm a little frustrated since {{Non-free use rationale title-card}} doesn't have any documentation and the template wasn't indicating there was a missing field. Cheers. — Earwig  00:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

WW discussion

In case you're interested, we're discussing your 100 random article analysis here in the Misplaced Pages Weekly Facebook group. Cool stuff. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015

Hello Carnildo. You tagged an image for deletion, but you did not notify the uploader that it had been so tagged. There is strong consensus that the uploaders of images tagged for deletion should be notified and that the person placing the tag has that responsibility. Part 3 of the instructions at FfD contain a pre-formatted warning for this purpose—just copy and paste to the uploader's talk page. The image in question was discussed here. Thank you. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  23:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Image modification request

I see you created File:Continental_models-Australia.gif by modifying the text of a similar graphic. I would like to use a variation of this on the Maori wikipedia but with the text translated. I know little about graphics and have never tried to edit an animated GIF, and there doesn't appear to be a regular editor on mi with such skills.

If you don't have time or inclination to help, I entirely understand. This is not urgent. I can ask at Commons:Graphic Lab if you can't do it.

The changes I would like are:

• The text "7 continents", "6 continents" etc should read "7 paparahi" etc.
• The continent names are "Amerika" (America), "Ūropi" (Europe), "Āwherika" (Africa), "Āhia" (Asia), "Tiri o Te Moana" (Antarctica), "Ao-o-Kiwa" (Oceania, which we would prefer to Australia), "Amerika ki te Raki" (North America), "Amerika ki te Tonga" (South America), "Eurāhia" (Eurasia) and "Āwhe-Eurāhia" (Africa-Eurasia).

The parts in brackets are for your understanding, not to be included in the image. The macrons (lines above some vowels) are important.

Please upload the new version to Commons:File:Continental models mi.gif as the Maori Misplaced Pages has a policy of not storing image files itself.

If you are interested in the discussion which prompted this request, you can see it at mi:Talk:Paparahi.

Thanks in advance.-gadfium 01:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

ImageRemovalBot and image templates

Just FYI, ImageRemovalBot did quite a number on Situation awareness by removing image "links" within {{Plain image with caption}} templates. Perhaps you could program the bot to remove the entire template in those cases, instead of leaving a bunch of stray syntax behind. Thanks. – voidxor 23:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll look into it. --Carnildo (talk) 22:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello

Assalam O Alaikum

  Respected Sir, An Administrator Block Me From Editing Pages Please Can You Help Me In Unblocking? H.R.H Prince Muhammad Zahid Zadran 08:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by M-Zahid-Zadran (talk • contribs)  

Migrated image bug

Hi, this diff removed an image from the bath bomb page after it had been migrated to Commons. Is this intentional behaviour? If you're running the bot without supervision, it could detract from a number of articles in the same situation. Cheers, Brammers (talk/c) 12:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that the image was renamed in the process of moving it to Commons -- the bot cannot magically divine that File:Bath bombs.jpg and File:Lush bath bombs.jpg are the same image, particularly after the former has been deleted. It's the job of the user doing the migration to update the links. --Carnildo (talk) 02:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

source code of ImageRemovalBot

Hello!

Is the source code of the bot somehow available? Or is it possible to run it in other wikipedias?

Some time before I operated a bot in ru.wikipedia that deleted image transclusions in the articles and the bot was based on CommonsDelinker system. But now everything changed and framework stopped working - as a result we have ~3k of deleted but not unlinked files: ru:Категория:Статьи со ссылками на отсутствующие файлы. So, is it somehow possible to use your bot in ru.wiki? Rubin16 (talk) 14:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

The source code is available at User:ImageRemovalBot/removebot.pl; you'll also need the support libraries at User:FairuseBot/Pearle.pm, User:FairuseBot/Pearle/WikiPage.pm, and User:FairuseBot/libBot.pm. If you have any questions, leave me a message. --Carnildo (talk) 04:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of William J Brennan detail

This is a cropped (by me) detail from an existing Misplaced Pages file, as you can verify by comparing it with the larger Misplaced Pages file: William Brennan color.jpg - Please revert your delete. PraeceptorIP (talk) 17:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

What image are you referring to? ImageRemovalBot has handled hundreds of thousands of images over the course of the past decade. --Carnildo (talk) 01:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

The image is File:William Brennan color.jpg

PraeceptorIP (talk) 01:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

That file quite clearly still exists. Which is the deleted image? --Carnildo (talk) 02:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Your bot deleted the detail of that file that I had made and put in Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul#Majority opinion. The detail showed Brennan's head and shoulders without the rest of the body. PraeceptorIP (talk) 15:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm guessing you're talking about File:Justice William J. Brennan - detail 1976.jpg. In that case, it was deleted by User:Explicit for lacking source information, and the bot merely removed the link to it from the article. Your best bet is to talk to Explicit about the deletion. --Carnildo (talk) 20:27, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Tapan Ahmed

Your bot posted a warning about missing source and copyright information to this talk page but forgot to include the file name. Any idea why? If it was about File:F.e. image=DETECTIVE.pdf and if you used some template with an unnamed (numbered) parameter, then note that you need to need to include the number when the file name contains an = sign. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I've fixed the bot. --Carnildo (talk) 00:04, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

ImageTaggingBot

It seems there is a bug with ImageTaggingBot since it tagged File:Maria Labo poster.jpg as without any sources twice while there is really a source given for the image (which is VIVA Film through IMDb)Hariboneagle927 (talk) 12:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I thought I'd finally seen the last of that damned navbox. Guess not.

The problem is that the source information is not in a computer-readable format. It's hidden inside a {{navbox}} template, which ImageTaggingBot quite reasonably ignores as being irrelevant to understanding the image description page. If you want the bot to stop tagging the page, use a machine-readable template such as {{non-free media data}} or {{non-free use rationale}}. --Carnildo (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Blanshard.gif

Hello Carnildo. ImageRemovalBot removed a link to File:Blanshard.gif on the 18th, a few hours after it was nominated for speedy deletion. However, I declined the speedy deletion a few days later so it could be discussed and the file was never actually deleted (yet?). Shouldn't the bot wait until the file is deleted rather than nominated? Fences&Windows 20:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The file was deleted by one admin on 18 May and then undeleted by another admin on 19 May. You later removed the CSD template on 22 May. The file was removed from the article shortly after its deletion on 18 May, so the bot does not seem to have made any error. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Huh, I had missed that and in two discussions nobody mentioned it! Thanks. So much fuss over one old photo. Fences&Windows 20:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not possible for the bot to remove an image before it's deleted: the bot gets its worklist off the deletion log. --Carnildo (talk) 01:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Help needed

Hi , i see u control a bot. If possible can u programme a bot for me since i dont know programmming. The bot can inform uploaders that their data needs citation Please I'd be very grateful if u help me thanks and Regards -VarunFEB2003 (talk) 08:45, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Photo used at a website.....

Carnildo,

I did a TinEye search on the falls photo at: Imprezzio About Page and was directed to your Wikimedia upload Upper Spokane Falls.

I was considering applying for a job that's open at this company but, if they're using Wiki work on their company website, I'm not interested in dealing with the type of corporate culture that's OK with that kind of BS......

Long story short: are you in someway connected with this company/website: is this a kosher use of your work or are they pulling something skeezy?

Thank you, Brian

Mad Bunny (talk) 02:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I've got no connection to the company or their website. If they can't even manage to follow a simple "give credit to the photographer" license, you're probably well-served to stay away from them. --Carnildo (talk) 06:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

What now?

So what licence do I add for this image, File:Lydia Ko - 27067658976 A.jpg, which is simply an improved version of an existing image with full licence details? Buggered if I can see what licence to use. Moriori (talk) 03:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Since the original is licensed {{cc-by-sa-2.0}}, that's the license you need to use on your derivative as well. The license also requires you to acknowledge the original author (Flickr user Keith Allison). --Carnildo (talk) 10:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Never mind. Just replace my improved version with the inferior version. Moriori (talk) 21:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Azad (2016) film poster.jpg

The ImageTaggingBot tagged this as no source. While technically true, a FUR does not require a source per the template. The template automatically fills in the source field with "The poster art can or could be obtained from the distributor." if it is not included. I went back and added a link but it seems a little unnecessary to tag an image for deletion when the template autofills in that information in compliance with non-free use requirements. --Majora (talk) 22:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

"Can be obtained from the distributor" is rather vague, which is why the bot doesn't consider it a source -- if you're going to go with the default there, you really should specify who the distributor is. Ideally, both the "owner" and "source" fields would be filled out, so we have a record of both who the copyright owner is and where the image came from, but the bot will accept a template where any of "owner", "source", "publisher", "distributor", or "website" fields is used. --Carnildo (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

ImageRemovalBot down?

Hi Carnildo is ImageRemovalBot down? I notice a few more files than normal building up in Category:Articles with missing files that it would normally have removed and I notice it hasn't edited for about a day now. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 13:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Bot has been poked and should work its way through the backlog in the next few hours. --Carnildo (talk) 20:37, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

• Cheers Carnildo KylieTastic (talk) 20:39, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Cc-by-sa-2.0-be

Template:Cc-by-sa-2.0-be has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ~ Rob₁₃ 06:31, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Carnildo. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Carnildo. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Your inactive bot(s)

Hello Carnildo. We currently show that you are the operator on file for at least one bot account that appears to be inactive. Please see the discussion and list of bots here: Misplaced Pages:Bot owners' noticeboard#Inactive bots over 5 years. If you are no longer operating your bot, no action is required - your bot will be marked as retired and have the bot flag removed. Should your bot be retired and you wish to revive it in the future, please request bot authorization at WP:BRFA. If you are still in control of your bot (including knowing its hopefully strong password) and wish to maintain the bot flag, please sign the table on the linked discussion. Thank you, — xaosflux 14:42, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Request for Comments on use of certain files not copyrighted in the US

Hello,

There is an ongoing discussion about the use of files on Misplaced Pages that are not protected by copyright in the US because there is no copyright relations between the US and the country of publication. You commented in a 2012 discussion on the same topic that resulted in no consensus. You are invited to share your views in the ongoing discussion. AHeneen (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Image source prefilled in FUR template

Hello, could you please explain ? I converted this incorrectly marked free file into a non-free file with {{Non-free use rationale poster}}, which pre-fills a source, yet the bot tagged it with the DI version of no source. — Train2104 (t • c) 16:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I should probably add this to a FAQ or something. Basically, "Can be obtained from the distributor" is rather vague, which is why the bot doesn't consider it a source -- if you're going to go with the default there, you really should specify who the distributor is. Ideally, both the "owner" and "source" fields would be filled out, so we have a record of both who the copyright owner is and where the image came from, but the bot will accept a template where any of "owner", "source", "publisher", "distributor", or "website" fields is used. --Carnildo (talk) 02:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Got it. It might not be a bad idea to start a discussion somewhere more visible about the various non-free rationale templates that do that (logo, etc). — Train2104 (t • c) 03:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

ImageRemovalBot

Hi, it appears ImageRemovalBot has stopped working. I noticed a build up at Category:Articles with missing files and checked its contributions page and it not removing any images and logging "Previous run is taking longer than normal". Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 11:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

The server the bot was on had intermittent network connectivity problems last night. The bot is designed to wait increasingly long periods between edits when it encounters an error; as a result, it was waiting 12 hours between attempts. I've restarted the bot and it should work through the backlog over the next few hours. I've also modified the bot to cap the wait at half an hour. --Carnildo (talk) 19:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Cheers Carnildo — KylieTastic (talk) 21:55, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• Hi Carnildo it appears that didn't fix the issue, it's still not managed to do any files and is still just logging the same warning. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 12:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

It's mostly fixed, it just doesn't look like it. People have been busy deleting old versions of non-free files and moving images to Commons. The bot doesn't need to do anything with those files, but it still needs to look at the deletion logs for them, which takes time. (The bot finally caught up to actual deletions a few minutes ago.) --Carnildo (talk) 21:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Bot tagging

Please note that I've added a help=off parameter to all the DI tags, similar to how the CSD and PROD tags have them. Can ImageTaggingBot be updated to include that in its tags? Thanks. – Train2104 (t • c) 13:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Image removed without consensus

The two images File:Kerala police forensic experts investigate the van which was allegedly used by culprits.jpg & File:Dileep produced before the magistrate court which sent him to judicial custody.jpg were removed by the bot without reaching proper consensus. Please explain why? Thanks. Wikieditorhja (talk) 04:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The images were deleted by User:Explicit for being clear violations of the non-free content policy, specifically point #1: a non-free image can only be used if a free equivalent cannot be created or obtained. The bot was simply cleaning up the leftover links to the deleted images. --Carnildo (talk) 21:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Re 'Lost in Space (2018 TV series)

A specially created image was placed and I recieved this response...

"Speedy deletion nomination of File:Chariot Images from lost in Space (2018).jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Chariot Images from lost in Space (2018).jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{Non-free fair use}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file. If the file has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it."

I did re-upload as suggested but it was ddleted again by the bot. Tt may have been an error where I placed the {{Non-free fair use}} tag. can you advise where exactly in the upload info boxes i should place this in order for the image to be accepted, or the correct procedure to allow the acceptance, step by step... as I am new and learning - regards RokkoRokkoRokkanno (talk) 22:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Deleted Image

Dear Sir, I am from hiwiki. I see that your bot removes non-exist image. Please sir, Can you give me scripts? so that I can run on my local wiki.-- Jay ❯❯❯ Talk 17:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

The source code is available at User:ImageRemovalBot/removebot.pl; you'll also need the support libraries at User:FairuseBot/Pearle.pm, User:FairuseBot/Pearle/WikiPage.pm, and User:FairuseBot/libBot.pm. --Carnildo (talk) 19:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Corporate terrorism listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Corporate terrorism. Since you had some involvement with the Corporate terrorism redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. --Nevé–selbert 20:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Carnildo. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Your bot keeps insisting that File:Warcraft III - Arthas - The Culling.jpg has no source information

Hi there. Could you check your bot's behavior at File:Warcraft III - Arthas - The Culling.jpg please? The NFCC template prefills the source information automatically and does not require a specific source as the default source is almost always correct. Yet the bot keeps tagging the file as missing source information. Other files I used with the same template (e.g. File:Dungeons 3 - Thalya.jpg) were not tagged. Regards SoWhy 07:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

"Can be obtained from the distributor" is sufficiently vague that the bot ignores it. The bot expects you to fill out at least one of "source", "publisher", "owner", "website", or "distributor" fields; it currently ignores the "developer" field, and I'm undecided on changing that, since the developer frequently isn't the copyright holder, particularly for promotional material. --Carnildo (talk) 20:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, the template {{Non-free use rationale video game screenshot}} does not require those fields to be filled out, so I see where the clash is coming from. I'll add more info but for the future, before you make a change as contemplated, the template should be changed first. Regards SoWhy 15:34, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Carnildo. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ImageRemovalBot - add some maintenance categories?

Good work from the bot here, but I'll occasionally find articles where it's taken out a deleted lead image and nobody's reacted to replace it with something else. I've just fixed up Shadowgraphy (performing art), which has been without a lead image for five years, despite replacements being easily found on commons. Would it be worth the bot adding a maintenance category when erasing the only image from a lead section (and/or the only image from an article), so that humans interested in fixing these issues can do so? --Lord Belbury (talk) 12:22, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

"Lead image" is too nebulous a concept for the bot to deal with. There's no good way for the bot to tell the difference between "first image in an article" and "first non-infobox image in an article". Anything I do to implement this will be prone to false positives, false negatives, or both. "Only image" is easier, but the bot can't tell the difference between meaningful images and user-interface images. It would see Shadowgraphy, Roger Malik, and Johan Ernst Berg as having images, when a human would say none of them does.

Adding a maintenance category is a good idea, but it's not something the bot is capable of doing correctly. --Carnildo (talk) 22:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Got it, I assumed the bot would be doing all its work at the unparsed wikisource level and wouldn't see the images in stub templates. That's fair enough then, if it's looking at this differently.

Do you think there's any mileage in adding an "only image was deleted" template (I guess a talk page template that uses a new subcategory of Category:Misplaced Pages requested images) even if it did overlook a lot of false negatives? Helping humans to catch some of these is better than none. --Lord Belbury (talk) 08:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think a template would be worth it. I just checked ImageRemovalBot's hundred most recent edits, and between stub templates, deletion templates, warning templates, flags in infoboxes, icons in navboxes, and other user-interface or decorative elements, very few of them would be seen as not having at least one image.

The bot does almost nothing with unparsed wikitext -- that stuff's a pain to work with if you're a computer, because there are so many different ways of doing things. The bot doesn't even edit the raw text, it parses it into something easier to work with, then unparses it before uploading. --Carnildo (talk) 21:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of -kinesis for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article -kinesis is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/-kinesis (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ajpolino (talk) 19:54, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Files without a license tag

Hi Carnildo. I maintain a weekly database report tracking files without a license tag. Since ImageTaggingBot already tags files found in the upload log, is there any way you could have the bot process this list of files too? Thanks, FASTILY 03:56, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

• Should be easy enough. The bot's not real fussy about where it gets its list of images from. --Carnildo (talk) 06:49, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Inconsistent state

What is the meaning of "incosistent state" on User talk:ImageRemovalBot/badfiles? Perhaps it should be explained on User talk:ImageRemovalBot. Hyacinth (talk) 00:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

It's an image that shows up in the API as both "deleted" and "not deleted". It's been more than a year since the last time the bot found one, so maybe they've finally fixed the bug that was causing it. See https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T35292 --Carnildo (talk) 01:58, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Fair use image

I just received a message claiming that i've not provided the source information, etc to the File:William McFeely.jpg image. This information was and is provided in the Image's file summary, but the display was not coming through right: (I swapped templates and rewrote the file summary.) The url source for the image is https://www.radcliffe.harvard.edu/people/william-s-mcfeely, which links to the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study Harvard University. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

The problem was missing close brackets in the "Minimality" parameter. That broke the template, and kept ImageTaggingBot from being able to read it. --Carnildo (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Is the image okay? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:16, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

The claim of being impossible to replace is questionable. The general rule of thumb is that for someone who died after 2000, there's a good chance that someone has a photo that they'd be willing to give Misplaced Pages under a free license (try contacting his estate, or the public-relations offices at Harvard and the University of Georgia); additionally, he was active prior to 1977, so it's possible there's an older photo of him somewhere that was never copyrighted in the first place. --Carnildo (talk) 18:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

"The Nonmetels" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The Nonmetels. Since you had some involvement with the The Nonmetels redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Image removal

Can I ask why you remove the images?? AslanLionheart (talk) 21:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

If you're referring to your rifle uploads, they were deleted by a number of administrators for violating copyright. You can't just grab images off random Internet pages and use them on Misplaced Pages. --Carnildo (talk) 00:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

A message

Hi. Could you tell ImageRemovalBot to, when commenting out images with two or more line breaks either side of the image, either to place the opening <!-- at the end of the previous line or to place the ending --> at the start of the next line. What it's doing at the moment has the effect that it effectively leaves three line breaks, meaning there is a noticeable 'gap' in the middle of an article.--Launchballer 01:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

ImageTaggingBot error

ImageTaggingBot said an image I uploaded (ContrabandVelvetRevolverAltCover.png) wasn't tagged when it had a non-free fair use rational on it. I'd like to know what happened with the bot to flag it. ItsCreamfan (talk) 01:57, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Category:Dead people has been nominated for renaming

Category:Dead people has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Lettler 21:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

ImageTaggingBot bugs

The template below was left on my user page but appears to be erroneous. Please note the following issues:

1. A citation was provided for the image
2. The bot claims that "ImageTaggingBot does not tag images for deletion." but it left a tag on the image saying "Unless this information is added to this page, the image will be deleted after 17 February 2021."
3. The bot's documentation talks about "lacking source information" but this is a red link and so the thing that's it's looking for does not seem to be defined.
4. The bot repeated itself – that's edit-warring

Image tagging for File:Kristoffer Domeij.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Kristoffer Domeij.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Misplaced Pages, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Misplaced Pages:Image use policy
• Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 13:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Andrew🐉(talk) 10:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• The issue has now been posted at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#ImageTaggingBot

Sorry

Should have checked my revision (1014448688) further before applying it. Sincerely, Deauthorized. (talk) 04:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

ImageTaggingBot has missed a file

Hello!

File:Religious Zionist party logo 2022.svg hasn't seemed to have had a license for its entire existing. Why hasn't it been tagged as a file without a license? Jonteemil (talk) 22:40, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. The bot got confused by the transclusion of Module:Arguments, Module:GetParameters, Module:Redirect, and Module:String2, and couldn't tell if the page had a license tag or not. When that happens, it takes the conservative route and assumes that an unknown transclusion is a license template it's never seen before. I've updated the bot to recognize that those modules are not licenses. --Carnildo (talk) 01:07, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Aha, sounds good.Jonteemil (talk) 13:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi again. I have now also found File:Green Climate Fund.svg which also lacks a license without ImageTaggingBot tagging it.Jonteemil (talk) 22:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

There are going to be a number of files out there with the module-transclusion problem. I suspect it's going to be anything with a {{information}} template but no license. --Carnildo (talk) 07:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Actually File:Green Climate Fund.svg didn't have {{Information}} but rather {{Non-free use rationale logo}} without a license, see Special:PermaLink/1043234501. Is it the same problem still?Jonteemil (talk) 21:57, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Templates derived from {{Non-free use rationale}} use Module:Redirect to categorize the type of article link present, which got the bot confused. --Carnildo (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Image border for deleted images

Hello. I noticed that at Tam O'Shaughnessy, the image's file border remains after the deleted image was removed by ImageRemovalBot. I was wondering if the file border could also automatically be removed when a deleted image is removed by ImageRemovalBot. Thanks! MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I'll look into it, but template parameter syntax is so complicated that I can't guarantee anything. --Carnildo (talk) 05:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

BAG membership

Hello. You are listed as a member of the Bot Approvals Group but it appears you may not be actively helping in this area anymore. Do you intend to return to BAG-related activity on Misplaced Pages, or are you happy to be removed from this list? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:56, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to remove me -- I've been inactive on actually approving since the beginning, and haven't commented on a request in years. --Carnildo (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay will do, thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Deletion of an image used within Template:Multiple image

This edit by ImageRemovalBot deleted one of two images used with Template:Multiple image, resulting in a single over-sized and distorted image looking like a mess. Please note, I am not contesting why the image was deleted. I wonder if there is a better way to remove the image from the page without the resutling mess? This could be a unique situation where the bot flags the page for manual deletion? Best wishes. Flibirigit (talk) 00:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

It's hardly a unique situation: there are many image-display templates that look less than ideal once the bot's removed the image. It's only worth coding special handling if the result breaks the page. --Carnildo (talk) 05:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

ImageRemovalBot

Hi @Carnildo: I wonder how I can bring this bot on Urdu Misplaced Pages? I have been fighted with a lot of non-licensed copyright violation files on the project and it is too tedious to remove the usage from articles. Could you help? I can help provide translated edit-summaries in Urdu, in case this can be easily done. _Regards, Aafi 16:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

The bot's source code is available at User:ImageRemovalBot/removebot.pl. You'll also need the support files linked at the top of that page. To make it work on Urdu Misplaced Pages, you'll need to modify the "$Pearle::Wiki" variable in User:FairuseBot/Pearle.pm.

The bot is written in Perl, so running it is a bit more difficult than the Python that most bots use. Feel free to contact me if you've got any questions. -- Carnildo (talk) 05:51, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

ImageTaggingBot question

Do you know why ImageTaggingBot double tagged File:Susan forsburg.jpg? There were no intervening edits so perhaps it's a bug? If this kind of thing has already been asked about and explained above, then my apologies for being repetitive. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

According to the bot's log, the server returned a "502 Malformed Server Response Status" error the first time it tried adding the tag, so it waited a bit and asked the server to try again. -- Carnildo (talk) 07:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)