Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:48, 7 July 2006

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.

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

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.

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. Giant Blue Anteater 02:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Obselete Image Copyright Tag

I have a question regarding the photo copyright tag used in the Steven W. Taylor 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. --TommyBoy 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. =/ Ieopo 02:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Image

Hey, I got this message, do you think you could help me?

"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.

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

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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Gfrankson""

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? Could I mabye get that help? I am begginer, so the help would be appreciated.

Thanks!

--Gfrankson 21:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Orphan fair use backlog

Hi... I know you can't personally do anything about it right now, but there is a large backlog of orphaned 'fair use' images 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 orphan tagged non-orphans that any one could take care of... --Gmaxwell 20:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

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. --Carnildo 07:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Chinese government licences

Hi! Would you be knowing if images published the the government of the PRC are in public domain? This is related to an ongoing debate at Misplaced Pages:Featured article removal candidates/People's Republic of China Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

No, but I suspect they aren't. --Carnildo 06:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is it called Orphanbot?

Would it not be better to take responsibility for this bot (if it is indeed your brainchild) and call it, say, "Carnildobot"? --Historian 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. --Carnildo 18:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

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! --Historian 00:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Removing Images

I noticed when this bot removed an image from the Reel Big Fish 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! Philc _T+C 13:08, 11 April 2006 (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. --Carnildo 06:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Coordinate your bots, please

I've spotted what looks like an unfortunate interaction between Roomba and OrphanBot: see the edit history of Image:Fate of Norns.jpg, which should be a perfectly standard fair use album cover. The image was first uploaded with a {{Don't know}} tag, orphaned by OrphanBot, then retagged as {{albumcover}} but then, being still orphaned, tagged as {{or-fu}} by Roomba. I was about to delete it per CSD I5 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).

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.

(Posted to both User talk:Gmaxwell and User talk:Carnildo.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

COPYRIGHT BOT???

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. EZZIE 23:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Go to Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags 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. --Carnildo 06:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much! EZZIE 07:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

page move

Hey, there was a discussion about moving the questions page to Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions from Misplaced Pages:Image legality questions. 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. - cohesion 06:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I just finished updating the messages. --Carnildo 06:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Images

Hi, a while ago I uploaded this picture of George Stroumboulopoulos, 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? witchbaby 21:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Hail botmeister

Any chance of your bot removing 'fair use' images from templates and userspace and posting explanations on talk pages? --Doc 21:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

If you can point me to a list of such images to work from. Category:Fair use images 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 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.

This work would be done under the FairuseBot account. --Carnildo 22:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:CSD 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. Jkelly 02:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I brought it up earlier, but it got lost in a fight over speedy-deletion of userboxes. --Carnildo 02:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair use bot

I have a complaint! ... It didn't remove enough. ;) on Image:KanishkaI.jpg it was also linked from template Template:Greco-Buddhist_art. 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. --Gmaxwell 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. --Carnildo 03:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

J2000 and Julian Dates

Regarding your edit to J2000, 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! MFago 02:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Julian Date and Julian Calendar are two different things. The only relation between the two besides the name is that the proleptic Julian calendar was used to define the zero point for Julian dates. --Carnildo 03:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

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. EZZIE 06:55, 13 April 2006 (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. EZZIE 07:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is a free content 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. --Carnildo 07:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Please note that images currently in use in wikiarticles should not be speedied. Please try again at Misplaced Pages:Images for deletion. Or simply re-tag the images with sth more acceptable. -- PFHLai 08:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

There's no such policy. But since you insist, I've listed all five on IFD. --Carnildo 08:17, 13 April 2006 (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 "{{subst:Idw|" to the uploader's talkpage, as per instructions on {{ifd}}. -- PFHLai 09:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

So remove the images from articles before you click the "delete" button. It can't be that hard, can it? --Carnildo 17:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Carnildo, it's not about easy or hard. It's as easy as following all three steps listed in the ifd template. While Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion#Images/Media 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). -- PFHLai 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 ? -- PFHLai 00:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Fine with me. --Carnildo 03:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Old photographs and Art images

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, -- Mwanner | Talk 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 Misplaced Pages:Untagged images. --Carnildo 02:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense. Thanks, -- Mwanner | Talk 02:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Snail image

Reason: upload should have been to commons, where said template exists. Thanks for pointing this out to me. David.Monniaux 01:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe your bot made an honest mistake in removing 20 images

Hello,

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.

user: Gallopingmajor

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 fair use. 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. --Carnildo 06:35, 15 April 2006 (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. --ElectricEye 16:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Tupac Shakur

I updated the featured article candidate Tupac Shakur, to reflect yours and other reviewers' feedback. Thank you.SqlPac 17:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

posssible OrphanBot bug

It looks like OrphanBot removes images linked to in comments, resulting in nested comments. See this diff for an example. SpuriousQ 07:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I've modified the bot to spot that sort of thing. --Carnildo 21:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

AFD

Hi, you may remember that you voted to delete List_of_non-instrumental_songs_with_titles_that_do_not_appear_in_the_lyrics but the AFD failed, well the list has grown even more and is now completely unmanageable, so I have nominated it again - just thought I'd let you know. TH 15:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Orphanbot

You have a funny bot, but I think it is a good thing. ^_^ Waikiki!!! --ElectricEye 16:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Did this break Orphanbot's search string matching? I tried to accomodate Orphanbot in the change. Jkelly 05:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Nope. The important parts of the tag didn't change, and none of the added bits will confuse it. --Carnildo 06:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

There is some discussion at Template_talk:No_license#Extending_template 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. Jkelly 16:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Heya... FairuseBot has removed my image from goatse.cx!

Why is that? It has a valid fair use rationale, and it's not going to be deleted. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The image was tagged as {{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). --Carnildo 08:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Cheers, I wondered how it worked... good idea! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

FairuseBot made a mistake: Image:Musashimaru.jpg

FairUseBot needs tweaking: going from your above comments, it will remove an image with {{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 {{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. Bobak 16:35, 19 April 2006 (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). Bobak 16:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Is it safe to edit?

For the whole scandal, see http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=331

Thank you, but no. I prefer to get my information from reliable sources. --Carnildo 21:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Orphanbot & optipng

Hello, I use to optimize ever png file I stumble upon. I use optipng, 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:Ddonpachi.png, Image Tagging for Image:Ddonpachi2.png, 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? --elias.hc 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. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 10:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

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… --elias.hc 11:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

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. --Carnildo 18:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

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. --Carnildo 08:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a million. --elias.hc 11:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to work: the talk // the image --elias.hc 18:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

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. --Carnildo 21:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, it happened again… the talk // the image --elias.hc 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. --Carnildo 18:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

There's still something wrong, apparently --elias.hc 13:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

<cough>… … </cough> --elias.hc 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. --Carnildo 20:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Orphanbot request

user:Unisouth has uploaded a number of photos labeled as from www.semg.org and www.semg.org.uk, usually using {{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.

Cheers, Thryduulf 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. Thryduulf 20:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Approvals group

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 Misplaced Pages Talk:Bots for my reasoning. Pegasus1138 ---- 00:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:2001lunarbay.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:2001lunarbay.jpg. 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 image tag applied to the image description page 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.

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. 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 Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 00:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. My mistake. Missed taging that one somehow. fixed it. Thanks. -- Jason Palpatine 01:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello,

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.

user: Gallopingmajor

Question about...

Hello. You tagged the article Stian Arnesen 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! Death2 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 Misplaced Pages:Verifiability for Misplaced Pages's policy on this. --Carnildo 21:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

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! Death2 21:57, 23 April 2006 (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). Hope this is satisfying! Bye. Death2 22:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

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. --Carnildo 22:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

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 The Kovenant (band) 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! Death2 23:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

preventing OrphanBot notification

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. ×Meegs 05:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

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 Image:example.gif and Image:Example.gif will be seen as being notifications). --Carnildo 05:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Space Patrol image

I recently added an image to Space Patrol (1962 TV series) - 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).

Najeeb Halaby Image

If possible, please see the relevant discussion between User:tyomitch and myself on our respective User Talk pages regarding the copyright status of the photo used in the Najeeb Halaby article prior to having it deleted by OrphanBot. --TommyBoy 09:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Minor Orphanbot issue

Orphanbot told me I had uploaded an untagged image, Image:Wikiwings2.png. 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.--Drat (Talk) 12:21, 25 April 2006 (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)?--Drat (Talk) 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.--Drat (Talk) 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 {{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. --Carnildo 18:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Verginasun.jpg

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 Zikander's contribs). I've just coloured and re-uploaded the image under the same license. See also User_talk:Zikander#Verginasun.jpg. talk to +MATIA 13:19, 25 April 2006 (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 GNU license requirements (I still guess that some admin has something to do with it but I can't find out what happened). talk to +MATIA 13:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

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. --Carnildo 18:43, 27 April 2006 (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? talk to +MATIA 10:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:MEP image (EP)

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 the copyright license 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. AnonEMouse 18:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

There are three things needed for a license to be considered "free":

1. It needs to permit distribution
2. It needs to permit modification and incorporation into larger works (the creation of derivative works)
3. 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). --Carnildo 20:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

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? AnonEMouse 21:11, 26 April 2006 (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 fair use or fair dealing. 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. --Carnildo 21:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. However, I've been looking at the Creative Commons license 2.5, 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? -- AnonEMouse 15:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

"Make a derivative work" is a legal term meaning "modify" or "create a work using parts of this work". --Carnildo 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. AnonEMouse 17:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Drumguy8800 image tag

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'..

by the way, thanks for all your work in this department. drumguy8800 - speak 21:44, 26 April 2006 (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.

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.

The GFDL is a very awkward license for images. It was designed around the needs of the emacs 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.

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:

This photograph is the work of drumguy8800
gallery | xvisionx.com

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, 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
Subject to disclaimers.

If you want to use this image under other license terms, contact me, and we can work something out.

--Carnildo 20:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello check this out

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kurt_Leyman

(Deng 03:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC))

Need help

Hi Carnildo,

If u remember you had edited Atmospheric water generator . Buddy i need help... can you help me edit the same to bring it to wiki standards.

Please!!!

Regards,

Ashvidia 03:58, 27 April 2006 (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.

Cheers

Srikeit 07:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:Mirko Vucinic.jpg

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. --Hurricane Angel 19:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

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. --Carnildo 20:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

OrphanBot feature request

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! ~MDD4696 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. - cohesion 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. ~MDD4696 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 "<caption>" was removed from this article and subsequently deleted (<link to deletion log entry for image>). Thryduulf 23:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism on Muhammad

Please refrain from removing content from Misplaced Pages, as you did to Muhammad. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Timothy Usher 11:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

{{Indiancopyright}}

I'm closing it as no consensus, but you might want to bring the entire thing up at Misplaced Pages:Copyright issues so it can be sorted out. Peace. Circeus 00:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Orphanbot doesn't know about promophoto?

Apparently OrphanBot doesn't realize that {{promophoto}} is a license tag.  ? User:dbenbenn 00:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

In computer science, it's called a race condition: 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 {{promophoto}}. --Carnildo 04:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

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? ~MDD4696 23:17, 1 May 2006 (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 {{untagged}}, {{no info}}, and {{no license}} tags to the images that need them. --Carnildo 23:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

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 {{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. User:dbenbenn 04:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fine if OrphanBot adds {{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.

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. User:dbenbenn 04:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

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.

I've modified the bot to check for tags before it applies {{untagged}}. I don't expect it to happen very often, though. --Carnildo 07:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Just my 2¢: if you aren't using Special:Newimages, 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, User:dbenbenn 14:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Ashlee Simpson Picture

Where did you get the information on Ashlee's Sales? User talk:Tcatron565 7:10pm cst 05/02/06

Susan Powers Image Deleted

The image was directly from her web page, which quite clearly identifies it as Copyright 2003 Susan Powers.

Why was it deleted?

http://www.susanpowers.us/images/320_Flowers_in_a_Cricket_Box_Web_2.jpg

Image: Quixote 8788. png

Hi there, Im very new to this and I need to get some images in high resolution, Could you please please help me?

The image is Quixote 8788. I need 4 more but I just want to see if you could help me with the first,

Thanks so much, Hope to talk soon Kind Regards Natasha natasha@sideline.ie

Coit Tower image

copyright fixed! I was unaware I did not do this in the first place! Boereck 17:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Your affirmative action style deletions are un-called for.

You even delete pictues I took and scanned myself.

What is an "affirmative action style deletion"? --Carnildo 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 slash and burn. -- Bobak 14:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Imposter

Just a heads-up, I've just blocked User:Camildo for vanalising the muslim userbox, and redirecting his user talk here. Looks like you've got a fan! --Doc 14:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

What tag applies to this?

I found this on the website for CalTrans, an agency of the State of California at the bottom of this page:

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. -- Samuel Wantman 10:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Stop messaging me

Set Orphanbot to never message me again in *my* talk page. Psychomel@di_(s)cussion 10:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Possible OrphanBot False Positive

OrphanBot inserted a "no Source" message into User talk:Billreid re: Image:Steam Drifter2.jpg. That image already had pre-existing {{PD-old}} & should not have been picked up. Thanks --Tagishsimon (talk)

OrphanBot is correct. The image needs source information (who created it, when, and when it was published) in order to verify that the {{PD-old}} tag is correct. --Carnildo 01:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry...

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. Keaze

P.S. I'll try my best to solve this copyright problem, but right now I have no idea how to do it.

Help required! - Doves.jpg

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.

Somebody replaced this picture of the band Doves 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?

Many thanks in advance for your help, Aquilina 03:01, 7 May 2006 (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. Borisblue 06:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a generic "message" template that someone's using to "dispute" policy. --Carnildo 06:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Bot malfunction

Orphanbot just nuked this image Image:P-51D.jpg. 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. - Emt147 18:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure you're referring to the right image? There's no evidence that Image:P-51D.jpg 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. --Carnildo 20:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

My bad, it was this image Image:P-51.gif. Source was in the comments in the upload history. - Emt147 20:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do about it. --Carnildo 18:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Source for Fair Use images

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 image:Farman F.222.jpeg 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. - Emt147 20:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

As Misplaced Pages:Fair use states, determining if a use is "fair" or not depends on four factors:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. 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). --Carnildo 20:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Now you are just being obstinant on purpose.

1. to illustrate the aircraft in question
2. where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information

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. - Emt147 21:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

No, fair use 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".

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 Abandonware#Abandonware and the Law for an example of this.)

And if you change the copyright tag to {{promophoto}}, you'd damn well be able to prove that it came out of a company's press kit. --Carnildo 21:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The Fairuseair template and the use of this image is in full compliance with Misplaced Pages:Fair use#Policy (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"). - Emt147 22:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Image Logo_Founex.gif

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?

Jean-Paul 08:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a logo of an organization, item, or event, and is protected by copyright. The use of low-resolution images on the English-language Misplaced Pages, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, of logos for certain uses involving identification and critical commentary may qualify as non-free use under the Copyright law of the United States. Any other uses of this image, on Misplaced Pages or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. Certain commercial use of this image may also be trademark infringement. See Misplaced Pages:Non-free content and Misplaced Pages:Logos. Use of the logo here does not imply endorsement of the organization by Misplaced Pages or the Wikimedia Foundation, nor vice versa. Fair use //en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Carnildo true

To the uploader: Please add a detailed non-free use rationale for each article the image is used in, which must also declare compliance with the other parts of the non-free content criteria, as well as the source of the work and copyright information. For example non-free use rationales, see Misplaced Pages:Use rationale examples. This tag is only for use on images of logos. Template:Non-free use rationale logo may be helpful for stating the rationale. Please do not use this template to tag non-free icons of computer software. Such items should be tagged with {{Non-free computer icon}} template. Regarding uses other than in the original article: Check the non-free use criteria and do not assume that existing rationales can be simply copied and pasted, as they may not necessarily apply. To patrollers and administrators: If this image has an appropriate rationale please append |image has rationale=yes as a parameter to the license template.

.

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.

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. --Carnildo 18:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Ioannis Fourakis

Greetings.

I need your help concerning the page Ioannis Fourakis. 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

User:panosfidis

OrphanBot error

OrphanBot picked me up on an image I optimised, Image:Oklahoma state flag.png, saying it was untagged.--Drat (Talk) 12:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. I'm working on fixing the bug. --Carnildo 19:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It happened again with Image:L is Real 2041.png.--Drat (Talk) 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. Lozleader 15:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

{{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 blazon) 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 {{logo}}. --Carnildo 19:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Didn't know {{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 {{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? Lozleader 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. --Carnildo 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 College of Arms 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 abandonware?

Lozleader 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 -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 06:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Orphanbot error?

It have just recently found that an image i have uploaded, Image:James L. Alcorn.jpg 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? Deyyaz 16:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that bug's been fixed. --Carnildo 02:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Indian Coat of Arms

Thank you for the notice, I have now commented on the source.

Bmaganti 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 Image:Myo-starwars.jpg), saying I hadn't adduced any fair use justifications, which is both wrong and out of OrphanBot's operating guidelines on its user page:

1. "OrphanBot tags images with no description as {{no source}}
2. OrphanBot removes images with certain tags from articles using them.
3. OrphanBot notifies the presumed uploader of the impending deletion."

What it did fell into none of those three categories. --maru (talk) contribs 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. --Carnildo 02:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not so much multiple notifications, but that there was any notification. --maru (talk) contribs 03:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Chapelcross.jpeg

I notice you tagged this image with {{no rationale}}. However, the image was uploaded after 2006-05-04 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 {{subst:missing rationale}} tag that is provided to copy and paste when you add {{no rationale}}. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 10:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

I've awarded you a barnstar for OrphanBot, and related issues. Stifle (talk) 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 Image:ScoobyDooGameDesign.jpg, 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... --Interiot 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. --Carnildo 03:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

fair use question

Since you are the fair use master :) - on Microsoft we now two variations of the same logo, its current one. Is this acceptable do you believe under wikipedia's fair use rules? Just another star in the night 05:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

If you're talking about Image:Microsoft logo blk.gif and Image:Microsoft logo.png, 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. --Carnildo 18:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

User_talk:Reindeer

Hi Carnildo. Orphanbot left a message on User_talk:Reindeer about the status of Image:Jowhiley4.jpg. 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? Proto||type 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? --Carnildo 18:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I'm not au fait with what bots can and can't do. Proto||type 11:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Jack Greene image

Please see my comments at Image:Thejackgreeneshow.jpg. Thanks. --TantalumTelluride 18:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:The_razors_01.jpg

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?

This is a rather mystifying log entry, since Image:Shadowgrounds - Box Front.jpg has both reasonable description (with link even) and correct tag. Stan 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 ({{coat of arms}}, {{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 {{gamecover}} to {{gamecover|category}}, and I haven't updated OrphanBot's description of the tag to match. --Carnildo 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 Misplaced Pages:Featured list candidates/List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes 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? Renata 18:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Olympic-rings.png

Instead of commenting the usage of this image, simply replace it with Image:Olympic rings.svg, and everything is fine. Now you are breaking quite a lot of pages, as that image is/was used a lot. andy 12:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I've questioned why this image has been ophaned, when it appears to have a fair use notice on it. Thanks, Andjam 14:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Robot

I want to have a robot named Babylon5 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??? --MehranVB 12:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Time,_Tidiness,_and_Checks

Hi!  Ho, hey, and a Hi-diddle-diddle: Your Bot, me 'thimks', needs hae' a (longer?) time delay!

re:Image:Old Saxony1 in western empire 843.jpg , 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, keeps a log, as this one's been dealt with already!

Via: 1 and

Src: 2, there are a ton of these authorative little gems just begging to be uploaded as needed.

Cited Src: The following maps are from the Atlas To Freeman's Historical Geography, 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, {{PD-old-70}}—for images where the author died more than 70 years ago (1936).
(Note: not where the work, image, or subject is 70 or more years old.)

Old J.B. Bury died in 1927, so this immense authorative important seminal work is now available.

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 user talk:fabartus. Then when I upload another, I can get it fast and easy!

Also, do you think wikisource ought be alerted on these many images? Thanks! Best regards, FrankB 16:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Marvin_meets_Rover.jpg

This was circulating around the Internet. How does one tag something like that? Wahkeenah 22:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• OK, since you won't answer, I'll have to remove your delete tag. Wahkeenah 23:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

0waldo

the license is fine. I had my lawyer read it. Thsnkd for your help! 0waldo 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. 0waldo 23:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

OrphanBot

Hello,

Could you please get your bot to stop bothering me? It keeps sending me messages about Image:Christopher_von_Deylen.jpg being an unsourced image, even though a source has been provided. --Folajimi 12:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Where is the source? I don't see one.... Yet another lame sig I came up with 12:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The source is available here; or are you pulling my leg? Folajimi 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... Folajimi 12:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:L is Real 2041.png has a source

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 mark it as not having a source and remove it from the article? Andre (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Image galleries

Hello, Carnildo. I'm personally having qualms with these galleries: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. What's your opinion? --elias.hc 20:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Arne_Carlson_portrait.jpg has source info

I'm afraid your bot must be mistaken, Image:Arne_Carlson_portrait.jpg 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. —Mulad (talk) 22:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Guildford_David_-_3.JPG 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

No original author!

Please do not ask for original author when the tag specifically states the image has no such 80.216.124.251 17:52, 20 May 2006 (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. PD Public domain false false

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.

Teach your damned bot to read before letting it loose. How hard can it be?

• {{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 Image:F Major key signature.png or things like multiplication tables. If you have any doubts, please ask.

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.

MX44 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. --Carnildo 07:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

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! MX44 08:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

You're being offensive. --elias.hc 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 MX44 12:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. --elias.hc 12:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

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. MX44 12:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

OrphanBot is actually two bots running under the same account, doing similar tasks:

1. "OrphanBot" inspects images tagged with {{no source}} and {{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 {{no source}} and either {{PD-self}} or {{GFDL-self}}, it reports the image to me for evaluation. If it sees an image tagged with {{PD-ineligible}}, it assumes the person who applied the {{no source}} tag knows better than the person who applied the license tag.
2. "TagBot" inspects recent image uploads for minimal compliance with the image use policy. If it sees an image tagged with {{PD-ineligible}}, it expects to find an explanation of why the image is ineligible for copyright.

--Carnildo 18:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

OK! In this case it appears like Renata supplied the {{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? MX44 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 1000Hz tone. A thematic map is not ineligible: the selection of colors, and the choice of map projection, are both creative elements. Neither is a graph of the average daily temperature in Little Rock, Arkansas: there's creativity in the choice of colors and the graph scale. A chemical diagram could be decided either way: there are at least two conventions on how to draw them. A example of writing in a given script 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 Category:Public domain images ineligible for copyright, I'd estimate that less than 10% is clearly correctly tagged, about 50% falls into the grey area, and about 40% is clearly incorrect. --Carnildo 23:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

If you set the threshold for a copyright dispute as low as the output from ChemDraw Ultra v7.0, 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. MX44 07:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Apparent OrphanBot CRITICAL error

On the 13th, OrphanBot's {{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. JesseW, the juggling janitor 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. --Carnildo 21:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Olympic rings - cleaning up

Hi Carnildo,

Image:Olympic-rings.png 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? Andjam 01:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll put OrphanBot to work on it tomorrow. --Carnildo 06:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

While you are at that, why not replace it with Image:Olympic rings.svg instead? --Sherool (talk) 20:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The restore functionality works by simply uncommenting the existing image. --Carnildo 00:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I've replaced the png with the svg version on about 1250 pages. There's still a lot to do, though. --elias.hc 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. --MaulYoda 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.

kmccoy (talk) 21:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ...

Images on Maria Capovilla

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 Help:Image page. 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. --Rye1967 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. Image:Louis gossett jr.jpg is an example of this. --Carnildo 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. Steve block Talk 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. --Carnildo 18:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Have a look at Image:Elizabeth II 80th.jpg 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. Steve block Talk 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. --Carnildo 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? Steve block Talk 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. --Carnildo 22:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair play. Steve block Talk 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 this discussion. Jayjg 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. Vae victis 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 Misplaced Pages:Fair use, 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. --Carnildo 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. Vae victis 14:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Sergey bubka 01.jpg

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

{{withpermission}}

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

{{withpermission}}

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

{{no rationale}}

tag once again.

--KANNAN 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 Misplaced Pages:Fair use#Policy, and why you need to provide an explanation as to why it meets those criteria. --Carnildo 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! --KANNAN 10:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Visit My user page for the special honor section for your OrphanBot. Dare to touch that; I'll list you and your darn bot in AIV. --KANNAN 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. --Carnildo 19:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyways I would like to know where I can use the template withpermission. Is it usable at all? --KANNAN 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 Misplaced Pages:Fair use criteria. --Carnildo 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...! --KANNAN 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 Image:Sergei Bubka UNESCO.jpg, 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. --Carnildo 05:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Pictures_from_snp.org. How about all the images under this? snp.org gives permission for "educational purposes", which wikipedia is obviously not. Then this, Image:C_lingerie.jpg. Image:Carl_Hiaasen.jpg, 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 --KANNAN 06:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Pictures_from_snp.org 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. --Carnildo 06:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

File:Fredandjack.jpg

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.153.32.226 (talk • contribs) 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. --Carnildo 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 WP:FUC #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? --Durin 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. --Carnildo 18:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Gmaxwell 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... --Sherool (talk) 20:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Source info?

What kind of source info needs to be provided for this image? Image:USSCobia.jpg. 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. Image:BBG-Cherry-Blossom-Festival.jpg. Sorry, I'm new to image uploading. --mtz206 (talk) 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. --Carnildo 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!!!

FearÉIREANN\ 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. --Peta 05:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

One bot, coming up. It'll go through Category:Non-commercial use only images, Category:Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial images, and Category:Non-profit conditional use images, and tag orphaned images for deletion. If you want, it can also deal with Category:Images used with permission. Do you have a tag it should use, or should I just make up a reason to stick on a {{db}} tag? --Carnildo 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.--Peta 06:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The bot should be ready to run tomorrow. --Carnildo 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,--Peta 07:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Openbot is asking for fair use rationale when it is already provided

Hi Carnildo, I uploaded Image:Goddess Harisu.jpg 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. Unitedroad 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 Misplaced Pages:Fair use criteria. Simply because an image is low-resolution doesn't mean it's fair use. --Carnildo 17:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thats low resolution? --Gmaxwell 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 Image:ShutBox.jpg. Thanks OrphanBot.

--Evmore 17:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Orphanbot Tagging

I got a message this morning from Orphanbot telling me that Image:Admiral Aiguille Delaz (Gundam 0083).jpg 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? TomStar81 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, User:Redkid2006, who tagged it, didn't think the source was adequate. --Carnildo 20:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

My mistake. Thank you for clarifing. TomStar81 00:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

OrphanBot & Logos

Please see my reply to your message on Template talk:No source#Logos. 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 {{no source}} tag is applicable or can be easily corrected. DHowell 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. --Carnildo 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. {{copyvio}}) in article space before final corrective action (which is usually far more reversible than image deletion) is taken. DHowell 23:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Caterina Valente 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, <KF> 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. --Carnildo 07:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

This time 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. <KF> 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. --Carnildo 05:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I'll try (1) and/or (2). <KF> 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. --soUmyaSch 13:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Lewishussein.jpg

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. SlimVirgin 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. --Carnildo 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, SlimVirgin 07:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not a random website, but an official website of Martin Kramer, a disciple of Bernard Lewis, 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? Pecher 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. --Carnildo

Right, but I'm afraid there is no practical way to determine the Jordanian photographer who owns the copyright. Pecher 07:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

delete pictures

Hello, I have tagged some pictures - that I uploaded - with the "{{ copyrighted }}" tag. This after I found out that "permission-pictures" are no longer allowed at wikipedia. Will these pictures now be deleted automaticly?. Regards Damir Mišić

Not automatically, but sooner or later they'll get swept up by the effort to remove all by-permission images from Misplaced Pages. --Carnildo 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 User:RJII? He has been uploading a number of images, such as Image:SomaliaElectric.jpg 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. - SimonP 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. --Carnildo 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. RJII 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. --Carnildo 06:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

User:OrphanBot

Your bot is becoming a nuisance. I uploaded an image ( Image:Lars ulrich diagram.JPG) 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.

Micoolio101 (talk)

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 Misplaced Pages:Fair use. Also, keep in mind that deliberately falsifying the license status of an image can lead to being banned from Misplaced Pages. --Carnildo 08:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

So what license do I use then, smart guy?? I changed it, so leave it alone.

Micoolio101 (talk. It's a waste of time)

You changed the license tag, but since you don't hold copyright to the image, you can't change the license. --Carnildo 08:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

LEAVE THIS IMAGE ALONE!!!!! 'WHAT LISENCE DO I USE THEN????!!!!!'

Micoolio101 (talk. Okay, now I'm pissed)

{{imagevio}} sounds good. {{db-owner}} or {{db-norat}} are also reasonable. --Carnildo 09:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, Ha Ha!!

Micoolio101 (talk)

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! Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/user:MostWanted05 Any thoughts? Thanks. LILVOKA. 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. --Carnildo 19:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:You can click but you can't hide.jpg

I'm a little confused about why this was eventually deleted. I originally uploaded it with the tag Template:Promotional, 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. --DDG 15:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

OrphanBot removed it from the article because the image still had a {{no source}} tag even after you provided the source. When you provide a source, you should remove the tag. --Carnildo 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? --DDG 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. --Carnildo 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, Chuck 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. --Carnildo 07:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Funny, but *ahem*-Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 07:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I signed the talk page rather than the RfC. --Carnildo 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. ----DanTD 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". --Carnildo 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. Trekphiler 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. --MateoP 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. --Carnildo 17:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. If you've removed me from your bot list then i am happy, thanks. --MateoP 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{{PD-retouched-user}}. --iMb~Meow 19:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you give some examples of where you think the bot is making mistakes? --Carnildo 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, Philip Gronowski 04:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Bot errors

I'm not the uploader of the Image:Hispanic diversity.jpg 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 User talk:JMejia7704. 05:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

bad bot

see what your bot did on this article. You were trying to remove an image had been removed by yourself. Yao Ziyuan 09:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

three times now, there must clearly be a problem somewhere: see . Schutz 10:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:Kokar.jpg

Hi. According to your bot, the copyright tag {coatofarms} is obsolete. What is the correct tag for coats of arms then? --TonyM 13:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Bot defective

OrphanBot_Defective -therearenospoons 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. --Carnildo 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. -therearenospoons 03:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Arms

How can a coat of Arms legally appear on Wickipedia? are there any exceptions see Arms. 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 Sir Robert Bell? Wales 4 June 2006 (UTC)

See . --Carnildo 04:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Delete

Hi OrphanBot. You left a message on my discussion. Can you please delete this image File:Dfsadfsdfsd.png. I uploaded it unintentionally. Thanks! --Killaruna 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, bigpad 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 : User talk:Matthew.priem. As you can see by my reply, I think there's a similar problem with Image:Canvas logo.jpg. 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 Matthew.priem isn't really around much anymore...) thanks, Venullian 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 {{logo}} or with a more specific version of the template. --Carnildo 04:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, tagged it as logo, thanks! Venullian 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 {{no license}} template. --Carnildo 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, Tone 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. --Carnildo 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. --Tone 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. ×Meegs 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. --Carnildo 19:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I get it. Thanks for answering. --Tone 19:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

4400 Source of image

I recently uploaded Image:4400.jpg 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 SirGrant 00:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Question about copyright

Hi Carnildo,

I was wondering, under what licence would this image 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. —Khoikhoi 01:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a license of {{Attribution}}, but you probably still should contact him to make sure he lets people use it freely. --Carnildo 05:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I couldn't find any way to contact him however. I've listed it on Misplaced Pages:Requested copyright examinations. —Khoikhoi 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. ----DanTD 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, User:Mikereichold | User_talk:Mikereichold 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 informed me 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... --Dijxtra 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. --Carnildo 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. Illnab1024 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 ({{PD-self}}), and strongly assert that they are your own work. That's the best I can think of, anyway. --maru (talk) contribs 00:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about Image:Salmon Creek Falls.jpg, Image:Black Rock Falls.jpg, Image:Barr Creek Falls.jpg, and Image:Mill Creek Falls.jpg? 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. --Carnildo 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 Maria Capovilla 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.--Rye1967 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. --Carnildo 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 Daniel Daly with the edit comment "Revert copyvio from Everything2 to last clean version". However, I find no edits from any user by the name of User:Everything2 in the edit history. Was your reversion in error? You reverted to a version by Bunns USMC. —ERcheck (talk) @ 02:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Everything2 is the website the copyvio was copied from. --Carnildo 02:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I found the Everything2.com article that you referenced. —ERcheck (talk) @ 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? --Sherool (talk) 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. --Carnildo 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. --Carnildo 20:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Sam Vimes2

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. Joe 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 One Lincoln Tower in Bellevue, Washington? If this is not possible, then please let me know. Thanks! American Patriot 1776 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? --Carnildo 06:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Would the University of Idaho Arboretum and Botanical Garden work better? American Patriot 1776 20:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I should be able to get there next Saturday. Anything in particular you want me to photograph? --Carnildo 22:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Not really, just whatever looks like it could fit in the article. American Patriot 1776 23:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Overview from the north works! American Patriot 1776 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." (— Preceding unsigned comment added by Atfyfe (talk • contribs) )

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. --Carnildo 06:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Many of the images I post with the,

  I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide. If this is not legally possible: I grant any entity the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law. PD Public domain false false

  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. --Carnildo 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. Bavaria 13:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  Orphanbot does not always warn original uploader

  After I edited Image:CentralAvenueCornell2.jpg, I mistakenly received and Orphanbot warning instead of the original uplaoder (User:Cornell010), just to let you know. Circeus 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. --Carnildo 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.

  Shkarter1985 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. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

  Done. --Carnildo 18:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

  Much appreciated. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 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? Kcordina 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. --Carnildo 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 User_talk:Kcordina/Orphanbot_holding_pen 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. Kcordina 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. --Carnildo 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. Kcordina 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 image after it has already been tagged as having no source, or who (like me) upload a new version and then tag it? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 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 Neutral Milk Hotel's In the Aeroplane Over the Sea, which has the same image. --liam 16:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

  My RfA

  

  Hello Carnildo, and thanks for voting in my recent RfA, 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! Sam Vimes 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. ----DanTD 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.Knightmare 08:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

  Strong at the Heart Image

  HI: not sure why you have removed this image from Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction. 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 Tony Sandel

  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. Viridae 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. --Carnildo 06:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

  Copyright Problem with Geocacher's Creed

  Thank you very much for your helpful (and quick!) comment at Misplaced Pages:Copyright_issues regarding my concern about Geocacher's Creed. As a result, I took your advice and reported it on Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems. Agent 86 02:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

  Gorgon picture at Corfu museum

  Can you please explain tag? Thanks. Dr.K. 06:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

  Image:Egyptiankidsb-1.jpg

  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? — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk 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. --Carnildo 06:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

  You've got a bug

  At this edit , OrphanBot removed a link to Image:Sanquentinprison.jpg from San Quentin State Prison 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. --Coolcaesar 07:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

  No bug. OrphanBot never removed that image from the article. --Carnildo 08:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

  Never mind. I reviewed the page history again, more carefully and you're right. Sorry for bothering you! --Coolcaesar 08:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

  Oprhanbot removed an image

  Hi there. I'm afraid I don't understand why OrphanBot removed from White Box Requiem. 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. --Leo44 (talk) 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. --Carnildo 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: . --Leo44 (talk) 09:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

  Looks fine to me. --Carnildo 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) DaBlade 13:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

  Is there an article that the image would be useful in? --Carnildo 06:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

  Bot question

  Your bot page states that it removes images from pages after they've been marked as fairusedisputed 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? --cholmes75 (chit chat) 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. --Carnildo 06:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

  Got it. Thanks. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 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 deletion log, the image was deleted by Pagrashtak, 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. --Carnildo 05:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

  Fair use rationale for Image:Solar chimney.JPG

  Thanks for uploading Image:Solar chimney.JPG. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Misplaced Pages articles constitutes fair use.

  Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

  OrphanBot. 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? JdH 02:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

  About the Image Problem of Dan Woods (Degrassi)

  I put {{Promophoto}} 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.

  Shkarter1985 10:59PM EDT June 25, 2006

  Sending message to wrong user

  Hey. OrphanBot dropped me a message for Image:Senatorronboswell.jpg 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. Deco 16:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

  Image:Christina_promo.jpg

  Hi,
  Would please delete the image and get over with it. Your OrphanBot 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. -- Omernos 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 Ian¹³/t 19:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

  malfunction

  Your bot is obviously malfunctioning--Ostrich11 19:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

  How so? --Carnildo 21:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

  it tagged for deletion a perfectly good image that had all necasary copywrite info

  Which image? --Carnildo 23:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

  Image:SS Mariposa.jpg--Ostrich11 23:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

  reformatted by me to link properly and refer to proper image name Stifle (talk) 12:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

  Oh, and by the way, the bot's working, it got him to tag a previously untagged image. Stifle (talk) 12:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

  Image:BrookeMcClymontIDon'tThinkIKnow2.jpg

  I did source the image in the summery :(. Lillygirl 10:11, 29 June 2006.

  Fix

  Fix your bot it is malfunctioning. Good friend100 15:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

  Malfunctioning? How so? --Carnildo 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! GeorgeC 15:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

  Are you requesting that I add you to the bot's "do not notify" list? --Carnildo 17:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

  Call off the bot

  I provided a rationale for Image:Mark Falcoff.JPG, 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. --TJive 08:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

  You've been added to the "do not notify" list. --Carnildo 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. --Carnildo 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? Jkelly 22:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

  I did. It expired on December 31, and I decided not to renew it. --Carnildo 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 WP:BOTREQ#Bot requested for image backlogs; you might wish to comment on the matter. Thanks and regards, Iolakana| 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. --Carnildo 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. Thursday Postal 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 Internet Archive, or for online news articles, in the paper's print archives. --Carnildo 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: --Amerique 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. PPGMD 03:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

  If he hasn't notified the uploader, then the bot should do it for him. --Carnildo 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. TheGrappler 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. --Carnildo 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. Shmuliko 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. JRA WestyQld2 01:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)