Regarding Your Automated Deletion of Images

Archives: The beginning through April 22, 2005 April 22, 2005 to August 3, 2005 August 3, 2005 to November 4, 2005 November 5, 2005 to January 24, 2006 January 24, 2006 to February 15, 2006 February 15, 2006 to April 13, 2006 April 13, 2006 to June 30, 2006 June 30 to December 1 December 1, 2006 to January 6, 2007

OrphanBot doesn't seem to like the character images I uploaded for Erfworld. It keeps adding the untagged template to all these images. I suspect it's because I coded my own tag for the Licensing section rather than using an existing template, but could you do something about this? Thanks! Gitman00 18:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What images are you looking for? I have pretty much everything on the allied side, and danmed near that for Axis troops. The problem is that I may have to remove them from the site at a later date (it would be unlikely, maybe a one in fifty probability against it, but possible) and am wondering how long such a thing would take in case. TaylorSAllen 20:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, your bot left a message on my talk page about Image:Ac.davidkemp.jpg and claimed that I uploaded it, which I didn't. I think you should fix this, seeing as there is next to zero chance that I could dig up the source for the image. — Timwi 20:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're the most recent uploader on record for that image, so OrphanBot notified you. --Carnildo 00:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the least recent uploader is the one that is most likely to be able to provide the copyright information? — Timwi 00:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Except in the case of reverts (and OrphanBot handles those just fine), the most recent uploader is certain to have had some contribution to the currently-displayed image. The first uploader, on the other hand, may have nothing to do with the currently-displayed image: see Image:Map 1914 WWI Alliances.jpg for an example of this. --Carnildo 00:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need to configure OrphanBot so it picks up the new {{fair use rationale}} template. Image:Action Park looping water slide.jpg has it, and I got a message all the same. Daniel Case 23:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only if the template is modified so that leaving all the fields blank automatically tags the image for deletion. One of the two most common responses I see to OrphanBot tagging an image with {{no rationale}} is for the tag to be replaced with {{fair use rationale}}, the other being replacing the tag with {{rationale}}. --Carnildo 00:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was brought up on Template talk:Somewebsite#This tag that a lot of the images tagged with this have had just the no source tagged removed. From the ones I looked at it seemed like they were either autotagged at upload, or by orphanbot, then someone removed the deletion tag without actually updating the info.

Anyway, would it be possible to run through that category with orphanbot (Category:Uploader unsure of copyright status) and retag anything with only the {{somewebsite}} or {{Don't know}} tags with a no license or something? I did a random check and it seems like a pretty high amount actually. (<50% but still)  :) - cohesion 19:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please discontinue use of your stupid OrphanBot program. It is not working properly. It tagged an image on a city article as not being tagged properly with copyright information, when the image in question is the official city seal of the city of Williamsburg, Virginia. This image is in use by the CITY GOVERNMENT and is in the public domain. Your mal-programmed bot does not understand this. This is not the first time this happened. Furthermore, I was not given adequate time to address the issue before the file was deleted. The file itself was also deleted without taking the links to the image off of the page, which left dead links!!!! This is a serious quality issue for Wikipedia. Please address this. Dr. Cash 02:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Purple Star
		Given in recognition for having one of the most vandalised user pages. Timrollpickering 03:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have given source, author and explanation for fair use, why is it still persisting in telling me I haven't added those things? I figured it may be a bug, so I bought it to your attention. Thanks, Hole in the wall 12:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OrphanBot tagged and image tagged as PD-USGov-Military-Navy-NHC as unsourced, please fix. --71Demon 15:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same error with Image:Brickwork.JPG, which is properly sourced and licensed.Fishdecoy 13:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Image:Brickwork.JPG was tagged due to a bug. I've turned off OrphanBot's tagging until I can figure out what happened.

Image:USS Barbour County.jpg, on the other hand, was tagged correctly. The {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy-NHC}} tag by itself is not an adequate source because there is no way to verify that the tag is correct. --Carnildo 20:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carnildo, what is the point in having tags then? We tag them, so this doesn't happend, then your Bot marks them anyway. I get photos taken by the US Navy from the National Archives in DC for some of my projects. I mark them with {PD-USGov-Military-Navy-NHC} which is correct, beyond that not much I can do. Your bot should not be ignoring that lable, otherwise what is the point of the lable? --71Demon 14:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point of having tags is to make it clear what the copyright status is. Before the standardized tagging system was developed, every uploader had their own way of indicating the copyright status, and it often wasn't clear what the license on a particular image was.

Adding the tag is equivalent to adding the phrase "this image is in the public domain as a work of the Navy Historical Center". Neither provides any evidence of where the image came from. --Carnildo 19:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So when I goto the Mariners Musuem outside Norfolk and get the photos, and I put I got these from teh Mariners Musuem, are you going to call them up and ask them to check their guest registry everytime a post them? What about the ones I got from the National Archives. Should I post a picture of me walking out of the National Archives, of course how do I verify, that the picture I posted of me walking out of the national archives carrying the photos is released into the public domain? How do you know it is even me? I think therefore I am? Is that good enough? Just fix your bot, so people can get on editing with the non-sense. Thanks--71Demon 00:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It did the same thing with two images within Extratropical cyclone the other day; it has done this with other images over the past year. They were tagged as being from the US government, and specifically, from the Climate Prediction center. First, why did you bot tag them? Second, why does your bot seem to take 6-9 months to tag images that it thinks have not been tagged properly? Thegreatdr 13:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted your image block, with flashing text and porn links yet. I won't revert war over it, but I do believe it may be a canonical example of disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Come on, now. Please. Be good. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Carnildo. OrphanBot apparently made this edit to a user notifying him of an orphaned image, but apparently never tagged the image, as it's still sitting out there as an orphan since October. Did something go wrong? User:Zoe|(talk) 21:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything wrong there. Are you sure you've got the right link? OrphanBot tagged Image:K12r logo fixed.gif on October 11, and notified the user less than ten seconds later. The image was deleted on October 20. --Carnildo 23:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, sorry, I was looking at the wrong image. The same User uploaded Image:Logo new.gif, which never got tagged. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The history of Image:Logo new.gif is a right royal mess. It looks like it was uploaded sometime before the existance of upload logs, tagged as a logo on April 7, manually tagged as orphaned fairuse on May 20, deleted on May 29, uploaded on July 8 by User:Halenaz, tagged as unsourced by OrphanBot twenty minutes later (the uploader was not notified because OrphanBot had already notified him about Image:Frontpage image.jpg two minutes earlier), removed from articles by OrphanBot on July 12, deleted on July 16, uploaded on September 13 by User:Freightdog, tagged by OrphanBot half an hour later (the uploader was not notified because OrphanBot had notified him about Image:Amererair.gif three minutes earlier), deleted on September 26, uploaded on October 11 with what looks like a perfectly good tag of {{logo}}. OrphanBot doesn't tag new uploads as orphaned fairuse because CSD I3 gives users seven days to get the image into articles, and OrphanBot looks at images within an hour of their being uploaded. --Carnildo 03:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carnildo. A persistent vandal who often uses IPs as sockpuppets decided on a new strategy and set up a couple of articles that really need to go. If you have a moment, I was wondering if you could look at Aga Khani and Islamic Cults and comment on their AfD pages. Much appreciated -- Aylahs ^(talk) 04:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appologies - I just saw your note at the top. Please consider my request withdrawn. Regards -- Aylahs ^(talk) 05:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policies prevent the protection of the featured article. Just be patient, and after it comes of featured article, revert all changes. Then re-add worthwhile changes. Atom 20:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments at Talk:List_of_unusual_personal_names#Removing_.22unsourced.22_additions —Dgies^t c 20:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have now reverted this three times in under 24 hours. Please respect WP:3RR and get consensus on the talk page before reverting again. —Dgies^t c 04:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please fix File:GanderInternationalAirport911.jpg. Several pages depend on it, and your bot deleted it indiscriminately. Thank you. 4.242.147.17 02:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Disney, and more specifically Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disney#Disney poster fair use, you will see that one of the open tasks being worked on is to tag all the Disney attraction posters with a fair use rationale. Meanwhile, at least one of them (there could be lots, but not on my watchlist) has been deleted by OrphanBot, leaving Carousel of Progress with no images at all. It seems a shame to delete something so badly needed at a time when volunteers are working to correct the problem. Karen | Talk | contribs 13:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: upon further research, I see that the Image:Carousel of Progress Poster.jpg has not been deleted, except from the article. This was done on the basis on a template, dated Januray 8, 2007, claiming that it has no source information. Yet it is properly identified as an official Disney attraction poster, and has the right source listed and a detailed fair use rationale. I don't see how it can possibly be made any plainer. The problem appears to be one person's opinion that all of the above is "not good enough", followed up on by your bot. Since the entire category of images has the same issues, clearly something needs to be resolved before OrphanBot takes further action on them. Meanwhile I am going to revert the article edit. Thanks. Karen | Talk | contribs 13:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having intervened in your defense the last few days, I trust you appreciate that I've had no axe to grind with you. You may be able to add something useful, say a tip, to this explaination, or at least make a gesture. He seems to be a bit young and feeling put upon, so to speak. Even mistook me for an admin. Ha! Happy New Year, btw. Best wishes // FrankB 19:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carnildo, now you have actually been helpful instead of combative and advisarial, but I still think you are wrong. I probably should have used this tag {{Copyrighted free use}} because the intent of the state to release these photo is for free use. Wiki, is not different that a news paper printing a short story, saying these are our Representatives, here is a little bio about them. Wiki is mearly electronic instead of print, but the intent of the state for these photos to be used is the same. The other point being, when I asked for these photos it was specifically for use on wiki.

You're probably well versed in wiki, and I don't know all the correct terms for use on wiki. So we are getting some culture clash. I have been involved in the mass media for a long time. I have written for magazines for many years, and have been an on air personality and producer of a radio show. I'm extremely familiar with copywrite info, and what can and cannot be used. I just don't know the correct wiki terms to classify it. My advise is, if you going to mark something, then contact that editor on their talk page, and work with them. You will catch more flies with honey, than you will with vinager. Yes, I'm a writter, thank good for spell check, because I'm not a speller. --71Demon 21:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your last

(Hope that means I got somewhere! <g> He's right, but Jimbo wouldn't back down in November, so what're you guys going to do?)

Thanks, but I was refering to 'here' in that phrase. As active as I am over there moving images and playing with categorys, I'm aware there are over a million on the commons. I didn't have a better estimate for here, so made a WAG as we call it in engineering--A wild assed guess. So I guess that was off 8:1 here, give or take a few ten thousands. Have a good night and better days. I wouldn't want the task. I'm much happier trying to settle overactive juvenile testosterone going at it hammer and tongs over nothing much at all. Cheers! // FrankB 05:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here your bot is posting notices to the page of a deceased user. This is appalling, the kind of insensitivity that makes headlines. Can you not blacklist pages you shouldnt send to or do something to stop this. I have removed the notices as clearly the user cant read them. It is very clear on his user and talk pages that he died 18 months ago. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added him to the "do not notify" file. Since you feel OrphanBot should not be notifying deceased individuals, could you please provide me with a complete list of which of the 3,265,067 currently-registered accounts belong to the deceased? --Carnildo 19:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, saucy, Carnildo *snicker* Juppiter 19:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians, this is where I got the info and this should indeed cover all the users wikipedia knopws to be dead, SqueakBox 19:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Nataraja

• User:Xulin

• User:Rob Levin

• User:Caroline Thompson

• Pushsingh

These are 5 further deceased users and that is all right now, SqueakBox 19:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But not so busy as to delete sourced picture files. The source is labeled, clearly, as being a work of the U.S. federal government, and coming from a government web site (U.S. Department of State). Kindly bring your robot under control. Thanks! Best, CApitol3 14:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was going through the "no source" image backlog and noticed a fair number of images OrphanBot had tagged as having no source that seem to have a clear source. How does OrphanBot determine if an image has no source? Specific errors I have seen include tags on tv screenshots (the source, obviously, is the TV show), similarly for movie posters and so on. Other images have had the source explicitly given, but as a link to a Wikipedia article on the source rather than a web page or plain text. Mangojuice^talk 16:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OrphanBot considers an image to be unsourced if the image description page contains only section headers and license tags, and none of the license tags is of the sort that specifies the source. {{tv-screenshot}} is not considered to specify the source: yes, the source of the screenshot is the TV show, but which part of which episode of which show?

OrphanBot shouldn't be tagging movie posters. Those are considered to have a self-evident source, just like album covers and corporate logos. Can you provide some examples of where OrphanBot has incorrectly tagged an image as unsourced? --Carnildo 22:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In retrospect, the movie posters were obviously movie posters but weren't correctly tagged until after OrphanBot got to them, so forget that. Two points, though: (1) I think tv-screenshot images shouldn't be tagged. First of all, in many cases, the image's context in use will give the source information, and in some cases, the image filename would be sufficient. Second, even if only the TV series is clear from context, is that really a case where we should be speedy deleting images that lack the information? (2) What about upload edit summaries -- does OrphanBot consider those to specify the source if they're given? Because they do, at least sometimes. Mangojuice^talk 19:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be posible to get a 1 off orphan bot run on this catigory?Geni 01:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your bot notifying me about the image. Uploading images here on wikipedia is so complicated and difficult, I'm beginning to think why even bother. Having to have every single detail about the image, I don't think I'll be uploading very many images here on Wikipedia (I'll just stick to text). Anyways, thanks for the notification via Orphanbot. 0-172 3:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Check RFI report about you.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I spoke with the creator of this tag ed g2s (talk · contribs) about whether he was continuing development of both the tag and the bot, and he said that he is "still waiting for someone with bot-coding experience to have a go at it". With your experience with bots, would this be anything you would either have interest in assisting with, or perhaps know anybody who could help? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 05:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably best done using a Toolserver account. I recommend talking to User:Gmaxwell about this. --Carnildo 00:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Carnildo. I think your bot needs a bit of work. It's taging images that clearly say that the copyright had expired. --Arctic Gnome 16:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Such as? --Carnildo 19:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if it were possible if this bot could scan fair use images to determine if they are used outside of article namespace? All the bot would have to do is scan the fair use image categories and if the image is used outside of namespace, it could write the name of the image to a log for a human editor to review later. Would this be possible?--NMajdan•talk 20:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's technically feasable, but not a suitable task for OrphanBot. OrphanBot's mode of operation is to get a list of all images in a given category, then download and inspect the image description page for each image. This works just fine for tasks where the majority of images need some action (unsourced images, for example), but is very inefficient when almost no images need action (less than 1% of fair-use images are used outside of articles). --Carnildo 00:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. ok. Thought I'd ask. Roomba and Fritzbot are inactive so I'll go back to WP:BOTREQ and see if we can get somebody else to take up the task. Thanks anyways.--NMajdan•talk 19:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for OrphanBot, it's obviously a very good thing.

I was wondering if you could tweak the way that it comments out images from articles though. I've run across a fair number of articles that have an extra blank line rendered at the top, caused by orphanbot commenting out an image. (example) The issue is that "[[Image:]] <extra blank line> Start of text" doesn't render an extra blank line, but "<!-- comment --> <extra blank line> Start of text" does. I don't know the minutiae of wikitext that well, but might it be possible to check if the line after the image is a blank line, and if so, move the --> down to that line? (example) --Interiot 00:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really that serious a problem? It's not as easy to fix as you make it sound: there are situations where moving the end of the comment down can merge paragraphs or otherwise mess up the formatting. --Carnildo 20:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It affects the rendering of articles, so yes. Does it only happen at the start of articles then? If so, could you just fix that case? --Interiot 20:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it happens in the middle of articles. Wikipedia's wikitext parser has some quirks when it comes to the interaction of newlines and comments. --Carnildo 01:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scuse me, but why is your bot continuing to mark the image CalvinRuck.jpg [Image:CalvinRuck.jpg] as having no fair use rationale. One is there. Have I done something wrong in documenting it or has your bot made a mistake? Caper13 03:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot mistake. The bot has a list of keywords it uses to see if the uploader has attempted to write a fair-use rationale, and you managed to avoid using any of them. --Carnildo 20:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please look at the brand new Energy: world resources and consumption and comment if it is ready to be a featured article? Thank you for your help.
Frank van Mierlo 13:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why this is tagged as lacking information on copyright status. The information is there and it is conspicuous and would be seen by anyone looking at the page. Michael Hardy 19:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the history, you tagged it that way when you uploaded it. You need to provide a link to the original page and replace the current tags with the {{GFDL}} tag. --Carnildo 20:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So is its present form satisfactory? Michael Hardy 00:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonably so, although it appears that the French Wikipedia is actually using an image on Commons: commons:Image:St anthony falls Oct 2005.jpg. --Carnildo 01:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I name the picture I took of the sky and I name the picture sky when I upload it, it attaches me to some other user named sky, so I alter the name Psyrsky to prevent this from occurring and now the bot tells me there may be a copyright issue, what is the issue? Yes, I am allowing it to be online, I give my picture freely to the internet what is the issue? —The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|Psychologyofrecovery 02:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)]] comment was added by Psychologyofrecovery (talk • contribs) 02:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I think you should be aware of the discussion underway at Wikipedia:Requests for_arbitration#Request for clarification on review of Carnildo's promotion. Regards, Newyorkbrad 17:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nabonidus cylinder sippar bm1 s.JPG can be removed, as it has been replaced by a better photo.Jona Lendering 12:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reposted from Nader.jpg:

Seriously, it has gotten to the point where Wikipedia has no pictures left in its articles. If you're doing research you have to search for text on Wikipedia and then scour the internet for pictures elsewhere. Wikipedia's popularity may be on the upswing, but criticism of Wikipedia is also on the upswing and I'd like to take the chance to formally renounce all the editors who have taken part in this ridiculous, destructive war on images. Juppiter 01:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's "denounce". — coelacan talk — 02:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at this.[1] Rationale is there, but wasn't noticed. Got me wondering, how exactly does this thing decide what a rationale looks like? Are there any special things I can do to make the bot's job easier? — coelacan talk — 02:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the rationale was placed inside the {{information}} tag. The bot doesn't look inside tag bodies for rationales, because otherwise it would be fooled by {{fair use in}} tags into thinking there was a rationale when there wasn't one. --Carnildo 07:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks! I'll remember that. In the future, couldn't it specifically ignore "fair use in" and "fairusein" when directly preceded by two curly braces and an arbitrary amount of whitespace? Bots don't seem to normally have trouble recognizing templates. — coelacan talk — 15:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following was posted to WP:AIV:

• OrphanBot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) malfunctioning bot; is placing template:no copyright holder on GFDL licensed images clearly marked with template:GFDL-no-disclaimers; see [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. John254 00:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The bot appears to have stopped doing this, but I would be appreciative if you investigated this matter further. Cbrown1023 talk 00:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bot was correct in tagging those images: {{GFDL-no-disclaimers}} does not indicate the copyright holder. --Carnildo 01:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit, wouldn't the surrounding <span id="delete-tag-date"></span> be sufficient for OrphanBot? Just wondering. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At some point in the future, yes, but right now OrphanBot looks for the parentheses. If I hadn't reverted that change, it would have caused OrphanBot to re-tag every no-source image last night. --Carnildo 21:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I seemed to remember you are something of a whizz on copyright issues - would you mind taking a look at todays edits by this user there's a couple of images he's added to the Taj Mahal article which are a bit suss. I left a polite message on his talk page asking for some clarification but I'm no expert and might be talking through my arse on this one. Given that he only seems to log on once every quarter, I thought you'd know the right course of action. Cheers. --Mcginnly | Natter 15:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Give him a week or two to respond to the talkpage, then nominate the questionable images for deletion. Images can be undeleted, so we can restore them if, six months from now, he demonstrates that the images really are under a free license. --Carnildo 20:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's asserted in an email to me that he holds the copyright and owns the website from which they derive. He's posted that assertion on the image pages now - seems sufficient to me. --Mcginnly | Natter 13:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it's been a while since you patrolled FACs for their fair use; would you care to weigh in on the current noms for The Smashing Pumpkins and Wesley Clark. Thanks. --Peta 03:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Image has no copyright tag" WHAT IN THE HELL DOES THAT MEAN?! i FOUND THE IMAGE TO BE UNDER GOOGLES FREE USE CATAG! GODDAMN IT! THE DAMN COPYRIGHT EXPIRED LAST YEAR! THERE'S "2" REASONS TO KEEP "MY" IMAGE! PLEASE EXPLAIN WHAT THIS TECHNOLOGICAL DISASTERS IS TALKING ABOUT, I AM NOT TRYING TO BE BANNED FROM A NOTHER SITE, MAINLY THIS GREAT SITE WITH RULE FROM HELL!--saikano 18:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The date on the copyright notice is the date the copyright was granted. The copyright won't expire for another century or so. --Carnildo 20:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see here. Every pages for cities have that notice. This tells pictures in city-data.com are usable in any form of media. Yassie 03:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. It says that city-data.com can use the pictures in any form of media. It does not say anything about what anyone else can do with those pictures. --Carnildo 03:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OrphanBot tagged this as having no rationale, even though it explicitly includes the {{Fair use rationale}} template. Can you possibly explain to me what is going on and what, if anything, further I need to do? (Please, if you answer here, at least ping my user talk page, because I have not been following my watchlist. Thanks.) - Jmabel | Talk 05:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah, I raised this at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#What exactly did I fail to do? but didn't really get a useful answer, that is why I've come over here. - Jmabel | Talk 05:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody told OrphanBot about the tag. OrphanBot only looks for rationales outside of templates, because otherwise it would be fooled by the names of some templates into thinking there was a rationale when there wasn't. --Carnildo 02:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My dear editor, please help me keep this image. I know the person who took the image with my camera. Please tell me exactly what to do to keep it. I really don't understand all the mumbo jumbo of the images. Please 'cause 'you're my only hope.'--al95521 07:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

carnildo,I'm a new wikipedian and i don know how to give a copy right tag to an image. i've uploaded an image carrots.it has no copy right owner and please give a copy right teg to it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaseemum (talk • contribs) 12:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The first thing you'll need to do is say who created the image and why it's uncopyrighted when it looks new enough to be automatically covered under the current laws. That should allow someone who knows more about this than I do to tell you what tag you need to use. --Murgatroyd 22:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

I was wondering, why am I receiving so many reports from your bot about my previous uploads all of a sudded. At present, I am in a middle of a dispute between a couple other users. With all these reports coming in all at once, it made me to believe that the ones I am in dispute with could be behind this. I understand rules are rules, and I respect that. Perhaps, this could be just a coincidence. I will give this the benefit of the doubt and will be willing to take care of these uploading situations. Please let me know what to do so I do not get any more reports on these previous uploaded pictures? Should I delete them if I did not upload them correctly? If so, then how do I do that? Kind Regards.

Wiki Raja 07:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you simply do nothing, the images will be deleted in a week or so. I can have the bot stop notifying you about the images if that's what you want. --Carnildo 02:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the template which OrphanBot added it says:

Notify the uploader with
{{subst:Missing rationale|Image:Ff cgw.jpg}} ~~~~

This is clearly something OrphanBot should do since it added the "Missing rational" tag. I'm refering to this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Ff_cgw.jpg&diff=108407307&oldid=108396193 --Pizzahut2 19:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OrphanBot already notified the uploader about problems with that image. To try to keep OrphanBot from spamming peoples' talk pages too badly, it will notify them no more than twice about problems with an image: once when the image is newly-uploaded, and once when it's about to be removed from a page. --Carnildo 02:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you remove {{PhilippinesGov}} and replace them with a no license template? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you redirect the template to {{no license}}, the next time OrphanBot processes Category:Images with no copyright tag, it will add a dated {{no license}} tag to the image description pages. --Carnildo 02:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, redirect is made. Thanks. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are the first administrator I could find can you ban User:Gay fuel mmm, he's do nothing but vandelise Wikipedia (including my user page). Thanks --Mr.crabby (Talk) 01:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, someone else took care of it --Mr.crabby (Talk) 01:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey fellow users, should we ban User:Batzarro, he has done nothing but vandal, and he has only been blocked over and over, why not come hard on him?71.96.196.108 06:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for the message about BarlowSchool.jpg...Do I have to upload it again to change the copyright status?...And if I do have to...then will I have to put it under a different name? Thank You 82.31.4.125 12:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I forgot to log in...the last message was by 12:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

--Brylcreem2 12:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already put in a fair use tag and indicated the copyright holder and date, the copyright holder being my organization of which I am a life member and officer. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Profdrmendoza (talk • contribs) 16:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Your bot tagged an image I recently uploaded a new version of. It left a message on my talk page stating I provided no rational or explanation as to why it is fair use, however the page is tagged with {{Fair use in}} and {{withpermission}}. I also included source information. Am I missing something here or is this bot just malfunctioning? Chupper 21:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It really is getting to the point where it's impossible to upload images to Wikipedia, chiefly because of vandals (yes, that's right, I said vandals) like you (and your bots) using absurdly outrageously draconian justifications to delete images and image references. What annoys me more than anything else is that you can't even be bothered giving useful explanations why you're deleting something, let alone (god forbid) actually helping by correcting what problem you see with the resource (finding another image?).

People like you are ruining this site for others - contributors tend to just give up, because of the constant fights.Mikejstevenson 13:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you spend your time uploading the copyrighted works of others[13] in violation of our policies it is you who harming our mission. Please take a step back and realize that Carnildo is trying to help, that he does a lot of work, and that he has a lot of support. Perhaps you are confused about the purpose of Wikipedia? This isn't youtube. --Gmaxwell 17:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes let's ALL take a step back. Carnildo launched OrphanBot that at the latest count has "removed images from 50 636 articles" and "has handed out 72 910 warnings to 47 627 users". Does such a lot of "work" make us all proud? Well, I received one of these warnings. It is big and red and impressive. It uses lots of words to justify itself. It assures me that "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.". Now multiply that officious, self-serving and UNHELPFUL pronouncement by 72 910. Now, if you wish, hear a suggestion just once from me, an actual human. This matter could be handled in a respectful and user-friendly way. Cuddlyable3 15:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In a perfect world I agree. However in this reality we have a mere handfull of voulenteers donating some of theyr free time to clean up a horrible mess of thousands of images that get inproperly uploaded every single week. It is just not humanly possible to do this cleanup (and yes it's nessesary) without some kind of automation. The standard "form letter" beeing written to cover all common problems might come across as very inpersonal, but there is unfortunately no realistic alternatives that I can see. People tend to get a lot more upset if theyr images just dissapear without a word of explanation of what the problem with it was. --Sherool (talk) 16:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you've got better wording for one of those notices, I'll be happy to hear it. The problem is coming up with something short enough to read, simple enough to understand, and complete enough to explain what's going on. --Carnildo 20:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:300px-Kaligoddess.jpeg needs to be speedily deleted because it is a scaled-down copy of Image:Kaligoddess.jpg. (Ghostexorcist 23:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Hi. Maybe someone asked you this already but I wonder, if it is possible to use the OrphanBot to check the images that have been tagged for some days and remove the tag if someone used them in an article in the meanwhile. It would be useful. Today, I was cleaning the category and found many images that were actually used in articles. Removing the tag with bot's help would come handy. Regards. --Tone 19:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have tried to resolve things, but Arzel and myself seem unable to reach agreement. I am abiding by the Wikipedia policies by deleting the matrixwatch.org external link, due to it being a discussion forum which is not allowed. However, Arzel does not believe this should happen.

Can you please look into this? I am simply trying to abide by the rules, but this does not seem to be appreciated. The article has been protected by yourself, and this may be best to keep it protected due to repeated reverts by others.

--Cybertrax 20:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i uploaded a picture i took with my camera of my snake named cobey wich is the name on the picture kinda but any ways u said it was going to be deleated y is it going to be deleated (rily i dont care because i dont no how to put it on my user page but still) and how do i do that thing that i tell where it came from i think it was identinfication can u just help me or im die of confeusion agin sory i no ur bissy thx for ur time --Rsivad 19:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever notice that Uncylopedia is making fun of you bot on Uncylopedia's Wikipedia page. :(

Your robot removed my map image in the Battle of Teruel article. It is licensed under GNU Free Documentation License and was taken from wikimedia. I am not familiar with the goofy drop down window when you load the image.

GenghisTheHun 03:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)GenghisTheHun[reply]

See This edit. The bot removed the first line of the image link, but left the rest unaltered. Can the bot be fixed to look for these?– Tivedshambo (talk) 18:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do. --Carnildo 21:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering how well OrphanBot can read {{fair use rationale}}. Like if the template had Replaceability=yes, could the bot tag the image as replaceable? If it can then that would be something to look into. Jay32183 20:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bot's very limited in what it can understand about templates. It can identify templates by name with reasonable accuracy, but that's about the limit of what it can do. --Carnildo 22:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, good to know. Jay32183 22:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please clarify what else I should do to make it clear to your bot that Image:Ivana Baquero in Pan's Labyrinth.jpg is created by me. According to a notice on my discussion page "the image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image". I beg to differ. I just made a header ==Source==, maybe that helps? For the second image that your bot tagged I still have to add the source/creator and I thank you and your bot for letting me know. Ik.pas.aan 19:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could it be possible to make OrphanBot drop slightly custumized version of {{idw-pui}} on the talk page of everyone who has uploaded images listed in Category:Unfree SXC licensed images, pointing them towards the listing here: Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images#SXC images. I feel it's time to clean it out that backlog, but someone is objecting on the grounds that I did not bother notifying every single uploader in person first... --Sherool (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should be able to get to it sometime tomorrow. --Carnildo 08:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Carnildo 03:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw Orphanbot creates the per day subcategories in Category:Images with no copyright tag. Could orphanbot add the purge link to newly created per day categories. Like the per day categories in Category:Images with unknown source as of 1 March 2007. That would make things easier. Cheers, Garion96 (talk) 19:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Carnildo 08:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Garion96 (talk) 13:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The porno picture link in your sig at User:ANNAfoxlover/Autographs in my view is unacceptable - And no, not because it's between 2 men. Just because you oppose online censorship doesn't mean you need to go around making a POINT... Spawn Man 04:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see if I've got this straight: You clicked on a link labeled "Porno-of-the-day", and are upset to find yourself looking a pornographic image? And as a side note, it's not two guys, it's just one. See Autofellatio for details. --Carnildo 08:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually thought it was a joke... Doesn't fix the fact of your point making... Spawn Man 23:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely need help.anyway where do I put the image info of the images I uploaded?--FG90 00:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And your bot is sending me messages of images I uploaded.--FG90 00:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— Answered at user's talk page. — Iamunknown 01:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...Template:Public domain? I've found that it is being used on a lot of images. See Category:Public domain licensing. I haven't checked the other "multi licensing" categories. --Iamunknown 01:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bot can spot them, but I don't know what to do with them. Sometimes it's used in place of {{PD-self}}, other times it's used in place of {{PD}} or the like. Occasionally the use is completely inappropriate (fair use or copyvio images). Back when I had the bot notifying me of unknown templates, that was the only one of the multi-licensing templates it was telling me about. --Carnildo 03:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Thanks for protecting the template, however as apparent in the talk, there is no consensus regarding which version it should be locked at as Larry has not produced any sufficient reason on why the Sassanid info box should not show the empire at it's greatest extent while all other empires on Wikipedia should. I would appreciate it if you could restore the correct version which is [14] while we discuss this in the template talk. Many thanks, --Rayis 23:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I protected it on the version that was showing when I saw the edit war on my watchlist, since neither version was clearly "right" or "wrong". See m:The Wrong Version for more information. --Carnildo 01:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thread retitled from "Images".

Wht did you took the image out of the goomba article?It was your bot and I hate you!!!!--FG90 13:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stay calm. You will note at Image:Goomba.png (which Orphanbot removed from Goomba), that the image does not indicate who created the image, who owns the copyright to the image, or the source of the image. Note that it is insufficient to state on the image description page that the image is a "screenshot from the video game" or that it came from "X URL;" the copyright holder must be identifiable. --Iamunknown 04:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I know what one is but how do you set one up? --Highfields, Lord Founder of WikiProject U2 Tour Venues 15:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can find most of the relevant information at Wikipedia:Bot. As to actually setting up a bot, a lot of programming is involved. You may be interested in the pyWikipediaBot. You can find more information at meta:Using the python wikipediabot. --Iamunknown 17:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thread retitled from "IDIOT".

Your idiot bot deleted Image:37 Fed. Reg. 23528.png which was a public domain U.S. federal government production scan. I placed proper tag on it.

Can you debug this sucker? -- Toytoy 04:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please tone down your language. You will notice that Orphanbot does not delete images and did not delete your image. You may see, in the deletion log at this URL, who deleted the image that you uploaded. I suggest that you go ask that administrator in a calmer tone why s/he deleted the image. --Iamunknown 04:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...I keep your talk page on watchlist and answer some of the repetitive questions? I hope that I'm being helpful; but if not, please tell me and I'll stop. --Iamunknown 04:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free. --Carnildo 05:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Captured the said picture using Flash MX. I downloaded the full episode via Torrent. Can you just edit the page I dont know where the image description page is. Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Idol fanatic (talk • contribs) 06:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

— Duplicate post at user's talk page, answered there for user's convenicence — Iamunknown 17:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added this {{PD-USGov}} to the image. Is that the correct tag? -- Noone 19:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That depends. Who issued that certificate? --Carnildo 20:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer all matters concerning advocacy of pedophilia directly to the Arbitration Committee. Please don't bring the matter up in other forums. Fred Bauder 12:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OrphanBot recently tagged Image:Samus's cameo in Galactic Pinball screenshot.png as lacking source information, but this is not the case. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 16:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OrphanBot did not tag that image. It was tagged by User:A Link to the Past --Carnildo 20:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Sorry. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image was deleted; i am willing to re-add image tags (x_x again) but the original source of the image no longer exists. Could you please restore the image Image:JDwBz.jpg whilst it is an orphaned image so i may begin using it?

Lord fabs 12:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

You erased a bit of trivia I had added to the James Brudenell, 7th Earl of Cardigan page - the Flashman books are pretty big, and the reason I looked JB in the first place. Was there a reason you removed it? It does occupy the first half of the book, and the series is quite long, and based on historical records.

Would it be better if I integrated it more into the body of the article?

Thanks,

WLU 01:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason why this needs to be in James Brudenell, 7th Earl of Cardigan? It may be important to the series, in which case it should be in the appropriate articles on the series, but it doesn't seem to be particularly important to the Earl. --Carnildo 02:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not tremendously important to the page per se, but Flashman was the reason why I looked him up in the first place, and I think that his appearance in the novel does merit a mention. I threw it in the body of the article, have a look (link). My passing familiarity with the MOS usually supports the inclusion of trivia within the main body of the page, though I could be wrong. It could do with a re-word, and I suppose the author doesn't need to be mentioned, but I'd like to keep it in the page. WLU 02:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Putting it in the main body of the text is better than a dedicated section. The problem with trivia and "in popular culture" sections is that they tend to grow uncontrollably, to the point where they contain things like "Cosmo Kramer from Seinfeld once said 'Machu Picchu' in a one-line throwaway joke", or are like Railgun, where the trivia section was larger than the rest of the article. --Carnildo 06:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, I've seen the same problem. Now the info is in the main body; I'm pleased to have it there, so if you're happy with it there too, no problems. WLU 13:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically this diff: Why would Orphan Bot think that those images do not have a source? They were taken using an emulator or a capture card directly from the game. Andre (talk) 17:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, nevermind. I see it is just people adding no source tags to the images. Andre (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has happened with screenshots and pictures that users state were taken by them like Image:BrolyVidel.jpg and Image:Original Star Fox Team.jpg. -Dark Dragon Flame 22:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OrphanBot can't understand in-text statements about the source of an image, so when it sees a {{no source}} tag, it trusts that the person who put the tag there knew what they were doing. --Carnildo 22:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see how this edit war, and of course that's what it is, seems lame. The problem, as you probably know, is that pages dedicated to historical subjects often become battlegrounds for people espousing their own ethnic spin on history to shed their own history in the best light possible.

Frankly, it's even worse when there are no battles, as that, at least, gives some balance -- if that's what you want to call it. At least the front stabilizes in no man's land.

On a topic like the Sassanid Empire, there isn't a battle, because there isn't really anybody around on the other side to push in the other direction. In Sassanid Empire, there's me, a non-Iranian person interested in Sassanid history, and a group of Iranian users who do not like it at all when I trim some of the excesses (and there are many). They tell me I'm "going against consensus," and when I retort that they are all part of the same interested group of users (most are member of the Iranian history wiki TF, in fact), so that's not much of a consensus, they accuse me of assuming bad faith.

It's an uphill struggle.

Anyway, I'd like to put this issue to mediation. Do you have any suggestions on how we can do that? Of course, the Iranian users would have to agree to mediation as well. I thought I should first put this question to a person who has seen the edit war but hasn't been involved directly. Any thoughts on how to proceed? Thanks. Larry Dunn 22:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I and others have already agreed that a color-coded map showing the borders at different periods is fine. Not only is this more descriptive, but it should satisfy User:Larry Dunn's desire to see the "usual" borders represented. Also, this solution prevents the use of Larry's OR "customary" borders map, which apparently is based on his judgment of the usual borders based upon looking at his atlas.

The only problem is that for no known reason Larry has not agreed to this solution, instead insisting upon using his apparently OR 'pee-yellow' map of the Sassanian empire's "customary" borders. Why he has not agreed to the solution proposed at the template talk, I do not know. However, I see nothing wrong with the solution and Larry has not criticized it, so it is possible that he simply hasn't taken it into full consideration. Anyway, I don't see a need for mediation as there is already a solution that should be acceptable to both parties. So what it really rests upon is whether or not Larry will be a WikiPotter in this situation and refuse the more descriptive compromise that his opposition finds acceptable. I recommend you take a look at Template talk:Sassanid Empire infobox for yourself. Please feel free to ask me any questions you may have. Thank you. The Behnam 02:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What The Behnam does not mention in his response is that, when the Wiki Iran Project users changed the map that was on the page to show the much larger borders in the current template, many other users objected to it on the discussion page of Sassanid Empire -- I'm not the only one. There are in fact at least two threads on the user page that show objections to the greatly-inflated map. The only users who urge it on us are the Wiki Iran Project users, and The Behnam.

The problem with using this map even in a color coded map is that the expansion of territory was only a temporary occupation in the midst of a war. No treaty or victory ever confirmed those borders -- in fact, at the end of that same war, the Sassanid empire virtually collapsed. Even color coded, the map would be extremely misleading.

A good example would be the German conquests during World War I -- in January 1918 they held most of European Russia, Belgium, parts of France, etc. By November of 1918 the Empire had collapsed altogether. A map of the German Empire urging the reader to believe that all the 1918 conquests were ever really part of the German Empire would be very misleading. If anything, those borders could be shown in the section in the article on the German Empire about World War I. That's basically what is done in the article on the Sassanid Empire.

I think this fact would be agreed with by any mediator who is familiar with history -- I suspect that is why The Behnam will not submit to mediation. Larry Dunn 20:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How long do you reckon Orphanbot responds to notify a user of an image tagged with a deletion warning? I'm just curious to know. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 14:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC) ╫[reply]

If OrphanBot did the tagging, the user will be notified within 30 second or so of tagging, usually less than an hour after the image was uploaded. If someone else did the tagging, OrphanBot will notify them within two days. All this is subject to OrphanBot's usual limits on how many notices OrphanBot will give someone at any one time. --Carnildo 22:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That helped. :) ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 15:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC) ╫[reply]

Hey. While I feel to discuss about this license with you, I thought the FAC page on Belarus might not have been the correct place to do it.

Ok, my feelings about the license is that I believe it is free for us to use. One translation I got of the page was "Use of materials of the Portal: Materials of the Portal can be used in mass media, extend in a network the Internet without any restrictions on volume and terms of the publication. The only stipulation is the reference(link) to the primary source. Any preliminary consent to use of materials of the Portal from the press-service of the President of Byelorussia it is not required." Another translation is "The materials of portal can be used in the media, be extended in the network the Internet without any limitations on volume and periods of publication. Reference to the ultimate source is only condition. No preliminary agreement to the use of materials of portal from the side of the press- service of the President of republic Belarus' it is required." I believe the license is free is that we do not have to seek permission and the only condition that we have to follow is to credit the website URL where we found the photo. How do you feel about it? (There is about under 10 photos, and this is not on the Commons, so pretty much, it is not a huge deal if the images have to revert to fair use or be deleted outright.) User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of your translations explicitly indicate that we or anyone else has the license for unrestricted commercial reuse and derivative works. We cannot assume we have that right unless it is explicitly mentioned. --Iamunknown 05:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know where that image came from, I know thta I have it in my personal files but do not remember uploading it, please delete it, I do not know how. if it means anything, it was from www.stjohnfisher.org.uk (my schools website) D. BULL 10:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the inconcenience, but could you please delete the shins image that i uploaded. I was trying to make it a logo for The Shins page, but im not sure how to do it. Sorry again. Darkneonflame 04:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Studearring.JPG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:12-year-old-girl-%28female-child%29.JPG

I have uploaded the following images. They are copied from http://www.archive.org/details/Nina_Cicchelli

I do not understand the messages. Can you insert the proper source and fix it. --Nina90 23:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there is currently a proposed amendment to include fair use images in the portal space at Wikipedia:Fair use/Amendment/Fair use images in portals2. I have decided to contact you because you expressed interest in this topic in the past. Please know that I am contacting all editors who partipated in discussions regarding this at WT:FUC. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 22:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not according to deleting Fair use images of the articles Torreón and Gómez Palacio. Please don't delete fair use images. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alx 91 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

They're not fair use. See Wikipedia:Fair use to see what constitutes "fair use" on Wikipedia. --Carnildo 01:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning up the photo of Image:LakeCushman.JPG that I took. Your work is a great example of a benefit of releasing works into the public domain. Travisl 17:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. --Carnildo 19:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is your fuckin bot removing images?--FG90 19:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because the images are about to be deleted. --Carnildo 23:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created a image (Citizens_Bank_Park-pinball.jpg) and your fricking robot deleted it without my permission. That was the only copy of that picture I had because I changed computers.Put it back or else I will report you (and your program) for vandalism! NoseNuggets 1:00 AM US EDT Mar 29 2007

Your image is still available at Image:Citizens Bank Park-Pinball.jpg. Permission from the author is not needed for deletion. I suggest that you retain a copy on your computer if you do not wish to lose the image. --Iamunknown 05:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying me you were putting Template:China-fairuse-with-attribution up for deletion. Oh right, you didn't. Nardman1 21:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. --Carnildo 22:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carnildo. You commented on that CSD backlog thread on WP:AN, so you might already know, but I made a proposal for an image-orphaning tab here on the village pump. Orphanbot has come up, so you might want to chime in. Picaroon 21:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:The_chronic,_Back_cover.JPG Thanks for uploading Image:The_chronic,_Back_cover.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia'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:

Wikipedia:Image use policy Wikipedia:Image copyright tags This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Waitingfordresdetox"

Why did you deleted it? At Dr. Dre's next album 2001 (album) there's also an back cover,(2001Back.jpg) and that keeps there. it just says:

This image is of a cover of an audio recording, and the copyright for it is most likely owned by either the publisher of the album or the artist(s) which produced the recording or cover artwork in question. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of such covers

solely to illustrate the audio recording in question, on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Fair use for more information.

To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information.

Carnildo, in case you missed it, here is Bowlhover's reply to you at ANI. Bowlhover seems to be a good editor in general, including making many useful contributions to the reference desk. However, there was something unusual with the account in February 2006; see here, here, and here. Also this exchange from December 2005. As for the user's recent "joke" on the Humanities RefDesk which I complained about on ANI: even though it became obvious after a few minutes that it was probably false, I still was distressed for some time by the slim possibility that it might be true. --Mathew5000 03:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What did you want to do by bringing up those two incidents here? What is "there was something unusual with the account in February 2006..." supposed to mean? That incident was not a hoax, and if you think I'm a moron for thinking about suicide, I would like an explanation of how being suicidal automatically makes me a bad WP editor.

As for my December 2005 conversation with Curps, are you now trying to discredit me by suggesting I'm a Nazi? Let me say right now that I am a 100% anti-nazi. But even Nazis have the right to express their opinion, and Curps is trying to curb that right. --Bowlhover 16:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mathew, read practical joke and you'll see why your last sentence, "I still was distressed for some time by the slim possibility...", fits the purpose of April Fools perfectly. --Bowlhover 16:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just alerting you to my recent post on the noticeboard, so that you can't try to ignore me. --Bowlhover 04:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I (Bowlhover) asked you to block me indefinitely, not for 24 hours. Read the latter part of my post:

"...Let me make it very clear that I will not apologize for my actions on April 1, and I will not refrain from them on April 1, 2008. Judging from the responses on the reference desk, almost everybody got my joke; it doesn't matter whether it was funny or whether I only managed to submit it 7 minutes after April 1. (I'm very curious as to why you intervened just now, by the way.) So please block me indefinitely if you really feel a joke/prank isn't appropriate even on April Fool's day, and realize that any shorther block will be completely useless."

Those statements still stand. In no way do I regret what I did on April 1, and in no way will I avoid such action in the future. Anything but an indefinite block is completely useless.

Considering how disagreeable you are, it's no wonder you've been vandalized many times. I would vandalize you too if I don't hate vandalism that much. --72.136.70.187 21:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The offer was only for a 24-hour block. If you want indefinite, you'll have to find someone else, or get community consensus. --Carnildo 21:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so you got community consensus for the 24-hour block? Where? I would like to see. Even Mathew5000 did not explicitly agree to the it before you took action. --72.136.70.187 23:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice. The pic is of me and is mine but I decided against having it in public domain after I put it up so I'm going let it be deleted. I don't mind so thanks anyway for the notice.

Hello Car, I had recently uploaded a picture of the Atom bomb Image:ShaktiBomb566c20.jpg which was detonated in 99 by india, the picture was taken a day before the explosion, i am highly convinced that no free liscence photo can possibly exist of this exact moment when the bomb was being lowered into the shaft, so i shall be happy if you allow the picture to stay as a fair use image LegalEagle 03:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear car, the bot has yet again removed the picture from the article, I would like to know if you have any reasons for believing that the picture will not meet certain fair use criterion LegalEagle 10:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seeems to me that you baited Bowlhover into "requesting" a 24-hour block. The upshot is that a productive editor has been indefinitely blocked. Please unblock him. Bishonen | talk 17:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Doc Glasgow's already unblocked him, and I've got no objections to it. --Carnildo 19:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Snowolf has told me the you have written a program to add the no-source (aka no-info) template to pages that needs that and some other interessant features :-) Some times ago I've written something similar in python and i would like to see your code if it's possible :) If you want, i've upload my code there but probably it will be not as good as yours :) Bye, [Filnik | Talk! | Discus] 17:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thank you for the link but unluckily i use only python... :)However i try to take a look :) Thanks again, bye, [Filnik | Talk! | Discus] 10:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to know why those images were deleted. If you could undelete them, I could put them on to Wikimedia Commons, much like the Linux icons. They are used non-commercially too. --TV-VCR watch 04:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted them because images that don't allow commercial use are not considered free content, and Wikipedia's goal is to create free content. --Carnildo 07:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you get that? O_o They are free and commercial used like the Linus icons I mention earlier. --TV-VCR watch 03:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right at the top of yellowicon.com: "for personal and non commercial use". --Carnildo 06:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then why don't you go look at all the other icons from YellowIcon here? --TV-VCR watch 17:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any others from that website. Do you have a list? --Carnildo 19:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're mostly on Wikimedia Commons.

• [15]
• Image:Yellowcamera.PNG
• Image:Yellowiconcamera.PNG
• Image:Yelloiconpower.PNG
• Image:Wikiactidade bot bronze.png
• Image:Wikiactividade bot prata.png
• Image:Marvinicons123.PNG
• Image:Crystal Clear mimetype recycled.svg

The list goes on much further. I you will not delete them, I request the images I had uploaded back.

--TV-VCR watch 19:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carnildo, you can also see Special:Linksearch/*.yellowicon.com and commons:Special:Linksearch/*.yellowicon.com. I'd take a look at them but I'm out for the day. --Iamunknown 19:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those are from the Crystal Clear icon set, which is under a different license than the rest of the icons on YellowIcon. --Carnildo 19:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote that I was the creator of the sepia image that was removed. The whole lower right quarter of the image was missing and I rebuilt it using fragments from the sea in the lower left corner. The sky was stained with a dark liquid, so it was totally redrawn. The reef in the background was only visible in a few small patches, so I recreated the efect of it. If I would have made a pencil drawing of that same picture I would have spent less time. Therefore I was not claiming to be the creator of the image without a reason.Mohonu 09:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You said "A license template for images that would be permitted under Chinese fair-use law but not US fair-use law. Unfortunately, since Wikipedia is based in the US, we need to follow US law".

I disagree with you on this point. Fair Use in this case, is a common treatment in both systems. Is Wikipedia based on US and English only? How about Canada and Great Britain and other English speaking nations? They all have different law systems. How about other language version of Wikipedia?

Please explain how an image created in China which qualifies fair use of Chinese fair-use law would violate US copyright law here, thanks. Dongwenliang 02:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lupo said “The U.S. does not apply Chinese law, and China doesn't apply U.S. law. Thus, "Chinese fair use" is irrelevant for us; we cannot rely on it. "Fair use" at the English Wikipedia is always and exclusively U.S. fair use.... This template should be deleted. Lupo 06:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)”

I also disagree with his point. The law of China and US are not totally irrelevant. The purpose of both laws are both for justice, fair, protection of the public and punishment the breachers.

I agree there are lots of discrenpencies between two laws. But they not always on the opposite. For example, stealing and rubery are illigal in both systems, and the right for girls to go to school are guarantted in both. Should we say that the illegality of stealing and rubbery are exclusively US illegality, and right of girls go to the school is exclusively US right????

The Wikipedia servers are in the United States, and the Wikimedia Foundation, which runs Wikipedia, is based in the United States. Therefore, all Wikipedia content needs to follow United States law. --Carnildo 04:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again you did not tell me in practice why/how an image created in China which qualifies fair use of Chinese law was not considered following US copyright law. Dongwenliang 03:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

US copyright law is not Chinese copyright law. The US definition of "fair use" is not the Chinese definition of "fair use". --Carnildo 03:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete my photo? Sea.jpg--Tamás Kádár 19:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're referring to Image:Sea9.jpg? As I stated in the deletion log, I deleted it because it did not specify where the image came from. --Carnildo 21:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that I can creat my user page not you. --Tamás Kádár 22:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your bot has deleted several photos from List of Samurai Champloo characters. Though noticeable I didn't think anything of it until it deleted this image from the main samurai champloo page. That deletion was of a promotional image, and the deletion created noticeable gap in the article as well as making the character box format less readable.

In an attempt to remedy the situation, I have added the following fair use rationale to the image page, as well as several images on the "list of character" page that I thought were most important to the article:

1. The image is of a character and content discussed in the text at Samurai Champloo.
2. The image is of lower resolution and quality than the original video (copies made from it will be of inferior quality).
3. No free or public domain images have been located for the subject.
4. The image does not limit the copyright owners' rights to distribute the show or DVDs in any way.
5. The image's inclusion in the article is important because it illustrates content discussed in the text.
6. The image is being used for informational purposes only.

I figure such fair use rationale will be sufficient because it is used on the featured article pages for Avatar: The Last Airbender and Scooby-Doo. As such images have gone unnoticed on these featured pages, I assume the justification will be sufficient for the Champloo pages. If not, please let me know what must be done in order to upload these and/or similar images and have them remain on the page. The Samurai Champloo articles seem to be especially targeted by this bot. While I can understand most of the removals OrphanBot has made, it is getting to the point where all the images will eventually be deleted and the overall quality of the article will be affected. SpiderMMB 08:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this is the place to say this; however, there doesn't seem to be any better place so... orphanbot seems to have tagged a sourced image, Image:Stephanie_1.jpg, as unsourced... I'm sure you'd like this problem rectified as much as I would. Thanks, D4g0thur 11:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MY FRIEND CREATED IT ITS FROM DEVIENTART.COM

I'm leaving this message here regarding your bot tagging Image:Chicago Spire only.jpg. This has happened once before to another image I uploaded about two or so months ago. I left a message on your talk page, as I'm doing again today, but I didn't get a response.

I'll ask the same question again:

It left a message on my talk page stating I provided no rational or explanation as to why it is fair use, however the page is tagged with {{Fair use in}} and {{withpermission}}. I also included source information. Am I missing something here or is this bot just malfunctioning? Chupper 23:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a current election in progress for a new member of the Bot Approvals Group. The discussion is being held on WT:BAG. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 23:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cross posted this for Staecker. I think there is a conflict with the two bots on some currently untagged images. Image:Alice9.jpg is an example. This is the surviving duplicate, which StaeckerBot tagged, but it had some meaningless text on it. Orphanbot I think saw a tag and text and didn't tag it for no license. Just letting you both know. :) - cohesion 23:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a known bug with OrphanBot: if it sees something with a tag that it knows isn't an image copyright tag, it fails to mark the image as untagged. I'll get around to fixing it sooner or later. --Carnildo 04:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mark

I spent half a day producing a draft of the criteria, in which the currently appalling state of the wording and formatting is cleaned up. I'm keen that consensus for implementing this draft be gained soon, and will post a note to that effect tomorrow. The draft is primarily a copy-editing issue, with the intention of changing the substantive meaning of the criteria marginally or not at all.

I'd be pleased to have your support, or your suggestions for modifying the draft so that it's acceptable to you. Tony 21:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, if I have, say, a screenshot from Seinfeld (with GNU type of license specified), in a Seinfeld related article, with a thumbnail making further specifications, I think we have the image pretty much put into context already. And if you want more, in the Image:Seinfeld.jpg page, it will automatically specify where is it being used: [[Some Seinfeld article]] which imply that the seinfeld copyright holders are the same copyright holders of the image. That's two references.

I agree with specifying a type of licence, it make sense tho have the information about how the image was produced, but the rest of the information is already on the articles. There is a reason you don't see indications of copyright holders of every single screenshot in magazines and newspapers.

--T-man, the wise 05:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The images is the following: [16]. I do not know who created it, who owns its copyrights or where did it come from.

The images has the correct license. Please do something about it.

Thanks in advance.

--Tasco 0 21:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't know who created it, who owns the copyright, and where it came from.. we can't use the image on Wikipedia. --Gmaxwell 22:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can get the same image from another site, and probably get the owners. That will work? --Tasco 0 00:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I find your bot very helpfull and usefull, and I'd like to run it on Russian Wiki, can you please provide the source code. But we only need it to remove images that are in Category:Images with unknown source and Category:Images with unknown copyright status from articles, is that possible?--Vaya 11:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The source code is available at User:OrphanBot/libBot.pl, User:OrphanBot/libPearle2.pl, and User:OrphanBot/orphanbot.pl. It's easy enough to adjust what categories it deals with. --Carnildo 22:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :)--Vaya 09:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that OrphanBot dumps its default notice on images using the PD-ineligible template. This is a case the bot should ignore as the template makes it clear ("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.") that the work has no authorship and it is therefore impossible to attribute and/or determine the origin. Noclip 04:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{PD-ineligible}} images do have authorship -- you don't think they appear out of thin air, do you? -- they just don't meet the standard of originality required to be granted copyright. --Carnildo 01:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the wording of the template again, it states about as clearly as possible that there is no original authorship. Can you name the authors for images like Image:Copyright.svg and Image:Star of David.svg? Noclip 23:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see [17] and [18]. --Iamunknown 23:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the wording of the template again. It states as clearly as possible that there is no original authorship. This doesn't mean there is no authorship. In the cases you specify, the copyright symbol and Star of David were both drawn by Zscout370. --Carnildo 03:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just uploaded some images (with Romanian Army vehicles or soldiers), but your bot send me some warnings. I don't know what to say because the copyright seems to be ok and I also added a summary with the initiall source of the image. Here are the images:

• Image:Infantry fighting vehicles.jpg
• Image:TR-85M1 company.jpg
• Image:LAROM.jpg

Best Regards, Eurocopter tigre 19:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I understand why mentioning the romanian law isn't enough?? You can check on the Romanian Ministry of Defense official site where it says: "In order to the Law nr.544, of October 2001 all the photo and video materials from this site are in public release". Eurocopter tigre 14:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Online translation isn't doing very well with that page, but it appears to be a freedom of information law: a law that lets people request information from the government. It has nothing to do with whether or not the images on that website are usable under Wikipedia's policies. --Carnildo 18:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I under stand that you deleted Image:Boost the Mitsubishi Eclipse.jpg. As a Cars fan, I am deeply upset. I am having the same problem with User:Viridae. --TimySmidge 20:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)TimySmidge[reply]

Hi! I have updated the information on images Image:Chechen rebels.jpg and Image:Sjeikmansoer.gif --Mega programmer

Please note: all images that formerly used this template are long gone. It is now being used by Mstudt (talk · contribs) for a whole series of uploads for which she is claiming fair use. My edit was the easiest way to prevent them from being summarily listed for speedy deletion. If you revert back to the redirect, please make absolutely sure that these fair use images do not end up as speedy deletion candidates as a result. dab (𒁳) 10:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...all of those images are replaceable fair use images. They should be candidates for speedy deletion (after seven days) anyways. --Iamunknown 19:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the warning. i fixed up the imageI am Paranoid 00:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Custodes_model.JPG

Your bot put forth a false message. As you can see, there was a tag, but it was entered in manually (as the drop down box did not have that specific tag). Could you please remove it from the image. Thanks. SanchiTachi 04:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason why you didn't just use {{Non-free 3D art}}? --Carnildo 07:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because I put it in manually so I could alter the boxes around the edges and the such. But I guess that makes it not botfriendly that way. SanchiTachi 15:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, if you see an obvious copyvio you can just delete it. Posting it to WP:CP just means that another admin has to look at it and then delete it anyway. Thanks --Spike Wilbury 19:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was tagged. What's the frequency, Kenneth? 19:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which image, and what was it tagged with? --Carnildo 22:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't been checking your messages. --TimySmidge 20:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)TimySmidge[reply]

Just because you're a fan of Cars doesn't mean you're exempt from Wikipedia's image use policies. --Carnildo 22:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphanbot tagged Andreas Baader.jpg as no-rationale, even though there's one right ther. This isn't the first time this has happened; perhaps you might want to look over how OrphanBot handles no-rationale fair-use images? grendel|khan 21:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<griiiiiin> --Kim Bruning 15:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have already added the copyright tag, but I have another issue. I uploaded the same image again before I added the tag correctly. I need the old version that I uploaded deleted, but I don't think it's necessary. I just don't know anyone who can help me with this. Thank You. Bull Borgnine 04:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:QuickBirdStLouisClip.jpg

Please see the page. The image may be used with appropriate credit but this does not seem to fit the cc-by-sa tag. Perhaps an appropriate tag specific to QuickBird images is needed. - Leonard G. 01:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The most appropriate tag is {{db-noncom}} -- images that don't permit commercial use are not accepted on Wikipedia. You may be able to find a replacement using NASA's World Wind software. --Carnildo 08:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphanbot is insisting on placing an "Image has no source information" at Image:Southwest Pacific Area.JPG, which I uploaded today. However, I used {{PD-USGov-Military-Army}} when I uploaded it. I have consulted Wikipedia:Image use policy and can find no reason for what the bot is doing. Please advise. Grant | Talk 06:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template {{PD-USGov-Military-Army}} doesn't specify the source of the image. A "source" is something like the name of the photographer, or where the image was originally published. --Carnildo 07:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Carnildo. Just wanted to quickly check with you about your Bot's functionality in notifying uploaders when images are tagged. It was always my understanding that it only notified the uploader when it had tagged images itself, however another editor has strongly suggested that it also notifies the uploader where images have been tagged by a third party [19]. It would be helpful if you could clarify this. Thanks, WjBscribe 17:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why have deleted regina spektor images even though it is properly licensed? and support an image that is a major health risk to some?--Migospia 01:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mind explaining what you are talking about? --Carnildo 20:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've added a {{no license}} to Image:Ariane 5 flight V-112 (503 serial).jpg. The image has a copyright tag, which is {{ESA-multimedia}}, so where's the problem? // Duccio 15:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read the text of the tag you put on the image? It says nothing about the license status of the image. If you believe the image meets Wikipedia's fair-use criteria, put an appropriate fair-use tag and an explanation of why it meets all the criteria on the image. Otherwise, the image needs to be deleted. --Carnildo 20:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I did. Honestly, I was quite confused, since the last time I checked the template didn't have that "will be deleted on February the 17t" (and by the way, of which year?) but didn't investigate. I did now: the template was modified on 2007-02-10 without any kind of discussion (see diff). I am about to revert that edit, see m:ESA images. // Duccio 22:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the page on Meta. I don't see anything there to indicate that the ESA has agreed to release any of their images under a free license. --Carnildo 22:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No those images are not free in the Stallman understanding of the word free. However, what I understood from reading the template and the page on meta when I first used the template itself, is that those images can be used on the english wikipedia without the need of a fair use rationale since the ESA license is enough. Otherwise, if you still need a fair use rationale, why bother creating a template for ESA gallery images? Makes no sense. // Duccio 10:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these tags have been created by well-meaning people who confused limited permissions for free content. Usualy before the destinction between "free" and "semi free" where properly defiend by our policies. Several stuch tags still exist despite beeing depreciated because of varios "grandfater clauses" that got build into the speedy deletion criteria that where created to for non-free media that did not have fair use claims, pluss most of them only apply to a handfull of images to they tend to pass bellow the radar most of the time. --Sherool (talk) 14:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(sorry for the delay, I've been away) This is not the case of someone who confused the fair use criteria, that template has been created from a person that was present at the Wikimedia-ESA meeting, after a discussion on meta, and my whole point is, if you don't like it, or think it's wrong, you don't place to-be-deleted tags on images that use it, because it's just FUD, you go on meta and discuss it. Meanwhile, the template should be considered valid, and unless Carnildo has something more to say (and if he does, I still think he should say it on meta), I'll remove the {{no license}} he added to the Ariane launch picture. // Duccio 15:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've read all the discussions I can find. The one on Meta seems to be inconclusive, while the more recent discussion on Category talk:European Space Agency images is quite conclusive that these images do not meet Wikipedia's definition of "free". --Carnildo 21:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i need help on this one guide me in detail what i shall do to keep the image on persians

Hi. I recieved a message from you asking me to specify the source and creator of the image I posted to Moral Court. I am asking you how do I specify the source and creator of the image? Please get back to me at your earliest convinence as I do not need my picture getting deleted. Thank You.

Hi Carnildo. Your bot has sent me a message warning about the copyright tag for my recently-uploaded image Image:A Love for the Arts.jpg. I still can't make out what's wrong with the license that I had clearly added. I asked for permission to use the image from Lee Saper, an author on deviantart.com whose nickname is delacorr, and he agreed with the upload of it. This image is not under Creative Common but it is confirmed to be used on Wiki by its author. I want to know what the Orphanbot requires of me about the license tag. Hope you clarify. Thanks a lot. AW 05:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see #I_got_permission_to_use_this_image_in_Wikipedia.__Why_is_it_being_deleted.3F. --Abu badali ^(talk) 16:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Carnildo. Recently, Template:Smithsonian was deleted, leaving some images without a source/licensing tag. Do you think it could be a good idea to ask OrphanBot to warn the uploaders to add source/licensing info to these images? --Abu badali ^(talk) 16:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do. {{untagged}} is not one of the tags it normally handles, since it's usually the one applying the tag in the first place. --Carnildo 21:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I need any extra tags for it, do I? Your bot told me to get more tags.--Jerry 01:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OrphanBot's been asking you for the source. Who created the image and when? --Carnildo 21:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems obvious that all of the images of Canadian seating plans were created by User:MS123 and were released into the public domain. Why did you single out 1980? If there was something out of place with the way in which 1980's chart was tagged, wouldn't it have made more sense to fix the tag or ask the user about it? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 06:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that I have never seen that image before, I can hardly be described as singling it out. Maybe you could ask User:MER-C, who tagged it? --Carnildo 21:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given your expertise in the fields of bots and images, do you think you could spare a moment to check out my bot request and give any suggestions? Thanks. —METS501 (talk) 05:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the OrphanBot user page states that OrphanBot does not tag images for deletion, but this is really not true. Tagging an image "no copyright" is tagging it for deletion. Anyway, that's really a side point. When it goes about deleting links to an image it finds objectionable, can it please leave a note on the image page stating which articles it was deleted from? Sometimes an uploader will state a license but not use the tag. When the admin comes along, he/she should add the tag, rather than deleting the image, and restore the links. It is very hard to restore the links unless a record is kept of where they were. Thanks, Selket ^Talk 16:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It already does this. Do you have an example of an image where OrphanBot removed the image, but did not leave a list of removals? --Carnildo 21:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Im a bit new to wikipeida so need a bit of help about uplodaing images. There are several old images (published before 1937) that I want to upload that have been produced (i.e. scanned in etc) by my local town library. They have no problem of me using them, but would like the images to be referenced to them. I assume this is ok? And can be released under a free licence with attribution? Just wanted to get your view point as you seem an expert. Thanks --McKDandy 07:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably ask this at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --Carnildo 18:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carnildo - I fixed a problem identified by your Robot. I've removed its tag from my page - assume that's in order? Regards (Sarah777 00:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Just fine. --Carnildo 18:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carnildo, I hope you can help me. It's not really important, but I guess it's a little bit necessary. I have uploaded two single covers: Image:Pure_Intuition_Single.PNG and Image:Breakaway_Single.PNG. The summaries for the older versions of the images are completely wrong. For the former image, the older summary describes the image as of low resolution, while it's of 600x600 pixels. And the latter image, the older summary describes it as the single for "Never Again" by Kelly Clarkson, when it's the single cover from the single "Breakaway". Could you please delete the older versions of these two images? I requested help from one administrator, but he seems to have ignored my message, since he answered the replies from other users who posted messages after me. I'm lost, if I request the picture for deletion, the problems with these images don't fall in any of the categories for requesting deletion. Thus far, I don't want the whole page deleted, but just the older versions. Please, help me with this problem, I would really appreciate it. Thank you. Bull Borgnine 17:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Carnildo 18:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please place a protection block on Lamb of God (band) people are still editing the genre as they are not supposed to. Skeeker 14:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you delete it? I messed up by uploading this one instead of another one!!!! Thanks!!!! ThinkBlue 20:39, 05 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Carnildo 04:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your bot deleted (or csd'ed) an image because it was CC-NC-ND. However, I had a fair use rationale for it. How can I prevent this from happening? - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 00:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to Image:State of Jefferson barn.jpg, it was deleted because it did not meet all of Wikipedia's requirements for fair use. In particular, it is quite possible to create a free-licensed replacement for it. --Carnildo 04:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your bot appeared to misfire here - It had a clear and consise fair use rationale, but just lacked those three words. Perhaps you should require user-intervention before throwing a CsD template onto pages with out-of-template text. MrZaius^talk 13:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason the bot flagged it as "no rationale" is that you don't cover any of the points a fair-use rationale needs. In particular, you need to explain why no free equivalent exists or could be created, you need to explain what it adds to the article that couldn't be done with text, and you need to explain why this particular image needs to be used, rather than some other non-free image. --Carnildo 21:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did the FIU Stadium photo get deleted? Why is it possible for the Bright House Networks Stadium photo to be okay or the FAU football stadium photo to be okay but not the FIU Stadium photo? They're all the same scenarios.

It was deleted because it's a fair-use image where a replacement could be made. The image for FAU football stadium was deleted for the same reason, and the image on Bright House Networks Stadium is listed for deletion. --Carnildo 00:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi carnildo, why did you turn the pictures into inline links? Hypnosadist 06:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did it because there's no need to have the images shown. Given the amount of traffic Jimbo's page gets, the less there is on the page the better. --Carnildo 07:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You replied just as i rv'ed because you did not reply. Anyway given the nature of the dispute in progress i think people should see what is being argued over. Hypnosadist 07:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you deleted an image of tina turner's page due to the copyright.The image needs to be replaced by another.Can you do it? or just tell me how to add another image that i'll do it.Thanks! Salmoria 7june 2007 (UTC)

I have uploaded the image Image:Heywood transport USS George F. Elliott.jpg and would like to claim my reward. Respond on my talk page. -- (Cocoaguy ここがいい _contribs^talk) 22:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I uploaded Image:793009031 l.jpg. I recieved a message from your bot saying that there is no copyright tag on the Image and it can be deleted if I dont put one on. I put a tag on the image when I uploaded it and want to make sure the image wont be deleted. Thank You for your help.

Ah yes, OrphanBot has notified me of a problem with this image. I've just made the changes and added an appropriate image copyright tag. I've also updated this image so your bot can't find fault with it. It's a pity that {{pokeimage}} was removed, though; that would've made the job a lot easier. -- Altiris Exeunt 02:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Carnildo -- I'm trying to upload this image into Commons, but I apparently always get a speedy deletion tag (with your name given as the reason) when I try (see here). I've uploaded successfully other Ohio location maps, and they all seem to be provided with a GFDL tag in their English Wikipedia description pages. Am I doing someting wrong? --Smeira 07:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's because on Commons, the {{GFDL-presumed}} tag marks an image for speedy deletion. --Carnildo 19:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering can you delete it? Thanks. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 14:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Carnildo 18:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank YOU. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for warn me before delect the photo. Well, this photo I took in a site. In this site:http://www.usfigureskating.org/Story.asp?id=35474. If you can modify the photo descripition, I would thank because I don't be geting. Thank you very much!

And, I hope you understend me, because I'm brazilian and I don't speek so much english.

Thank you

Bye

How the heck will I edit the information of my photo, so I can fricking put where the heck my picture came from. By the way, all of the photos that I uploaded was from me.

Jonica Time: right now!!!

This can't be right! Your edit-bot deleted two perfectly-good color-coded maps showing intercontinental boundaries on documentation technicalities! The overwhelming majority of observant editors on the subject of transcontinental countries want the maps there, and I wish that you'd respect our wishes! Heff01 00:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice. Without proper source information, it's impossible to verify the license status of the images, so the images will need to be deleted. Further, the licenses on the images require that the source be credited, so right now, Wikipedia's use of the images violates copyright law. --Carnildo 01:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the appropriate tag to use for images taken from a book and used to support a statement made in an article? Baseball Bugs 17:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on the image, the book, the statement, and the article. --Carnildo 20:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was wondering if you can delete it? ThinkBlue 01:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Carnildo 05:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphanbot seems to be removing pictures from articles even when sources have been specified. See Image:Gilecory.jpg for example. - Nunh-huh 18:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When OrphanBot removed it from the articles, it was tagged as {{no source}}. OrphanBot doesn't check for sources when removing images: since humans are much better at telling if an image is sourced or not, it assumes that whoever placed the tag knew what they were doing. --Carnildo 18:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then OrphanBot shouldn't remove images for a second time when they've been replaced by a human, should it? - Nunh-huh 18:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all the time, if an image is replaced after OrphanBot removes it, it's because the person doing the replacing doesn't understand the policy or disagrees with it, not because the image has proper source and licensing information. --Carnildo 20:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this was four times when that was not the case. - Nunh-huh 04:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And none of the people involved thought to remove the clearly-incorrect tag from the image? --Carnildo 06:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think most people believe that bots exist to make life easier for people, rather than the reverse, and of course, to improve the Wikipedia, rather than degrade it. If you don't care to improve the functioning of your bot, that's fine. Of course, that makes it more likely that it will be blocked if these sorts of errors recur. I think revising your bot not to make repetitive removals without adequate human investigation would be a better course. - Nunh-huh 15:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ah could you delete all the muscle crash pics sorry i thourt i mey have neeed them but i don't am verry sorry for wasting aveybodys time.

Hi. I have received a number of messages from the Bot saying I haven't provided a rationale -well I have created a template which naturally gives a standard rationale -this has been very much approved by other users -however the Bot doesn't register -e.g it had already been provided for Image:HusseinKamel.jpg but the bot which usually does a very impressive job looks quite silly tagging in article which has a clear rationale. Is there anyway around it? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 17:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The contents of your template is invisible to OrphanBot, and probably to any other bot that checks for rationales. If you want bots to see it, you need to subst: the rationale template. --Carnildo 20:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering if you can delete it? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Carnildo 00:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Carnildo, I am writing to you following removal by User:OrphanBot of the main photograph in the above-mentioned article. In view of my earlier extensive communications with User talk:Mecu on the subject matter, I should like to request you kindly to restore the removed photograph. I should like to repeat what I have mentioned earlier to User:Mecu: I consider removal of this photograph as a personal affront to my dignity and therefore should this photograph not be restored to the above-mentioned article, I will stop all my activities on Wikipedia. I repeat, the photograph in question had been forwarded to me by Ms Dadvar herself, expressedly for the purpose of placing on Wikipedia; it is utterly mysterious to me why this photogtaph must have been deleted twice before --- the photograph was in addition furnished with an appropriate copy-right statement. Awaiting you response, Yours sincerely, --BF 16:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carnildo, please could you check if http://www.flickr.com/photos/alexindigo/213186500/ is suitable for loading on wiki, I think it is because it doesn't say it can't be used for commercial use but it still says 2.0??? Would be much appreciated. Cheers. Sue Wallace 18:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it's usable or not. The image is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license, but since the poster takes up such a large portion of the image, the image could be considered a derivative work of the poster. You could probably get a more definite response at Wikipedia:Media Copyright Questions. --Carnildo 20:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been uploading a few images from the LIbrary of Congress using the Template:HABS, which covers both the source and the copyright of the image. Your bot keeps tagging them as not having source information. Is there something I could do, like modify the template, to make sure this doesn't happen? Thanks pw 21:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For a problem image, see Image:James Baxter House.PNG pw 21:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I've added {{HABS}} and {{PD-USGov-Interior-HABS}} to OrphanBot's list of license tags that also provide a source. --Carnildo 21:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added comments to the discussion page there... the trivia section seems relevant (see discussion on that article).... BTW, thanks for pointing out 3 revert rule... I was unaware, and I think your handling of the murder-sucide article to remove all examples was the best solution.Alpiazza 18:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with trivia sections is that they tend to become disorganized bullet-point lists of random minor facts. Because it's easier to add another item to a trivia list than to add well-written prose, they tend to grow at the expense of the rest of the article. At the same time, trivia lists are harder to read than paragraph-formatted text. See Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles for more information. --Carnildo 19:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot still not registering it e.g Image:ErnestTorrence.jpg I have been adding the header == == rationale and it still doesn't register it. Please could you adapt the template -I don;t know how with the subst: or whatever so the bot registers my rationales thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 14:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of typing {{filmbiorationale}}, type {{subst:filmbiorationale}}. This will put the contents of the template in the image description page, so that bots can see it. --Carnildo 19:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you delete it? --ThinkBlue 00:34, 02 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any particular reason? It looks like a perfectly good free-license photograph of the person. --Carnildo 06:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went through some websites and its not a free-use image!!!! SORRY!!! --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:36, 07 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why has OrphanBot tagged Image:HMAS Westralia badge.png as having a depreciated copyright tag? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because the text "{{Coat of arms}}" appears in the "Previous file history" and "Previous description history" sections. OrphanBot doesn't know about <nowiki>, since it's quite rare on image description pages. --Carnildo 06:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I see. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 21:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tinucherian#Image_copyright_problem_with_Image:Cherian_philip.JPG for discussions on this matter

Thanks Tinucherian 13:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i had the copyright on the page... what are you talking about?hey hey hey. 19:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia page ain't helpful enough for the copyright tags? Could you show me an example of what it would look like in the edit page thing? --HPJoker 22:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? --Carnildo 22:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your orphan bot sent me a notice that I need to post copyright tags to a J.D. Drew photo I posted on the J.D. Drew page (JD Drew is a Red Sox outfielder). I don't understand the directions for putting copyright tags on my photo. How do I put copyright tags on my J.D. Drew photo? --HPJoker 16:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to Image:JD Drew.jpg, the picture isn't suitable for use on Wikipedia. Wikipedia policy requires that all images of living individuals be available under a free content license, and the images you uploaded aren't. --Carnildo 21:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh damnit! How do I find a picture of JD Drew with a free content license? --HPJoker 00:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could ask someone to take one, or you could ask someone with an existing picture to license it, or you could look around for one. --Carnildo 01:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please excuse me, i have made a mistake, and i have upload a picture (Image:Montenegro T-55 scarp.jpg.) without license and i want from you to delete it. Thank you!

Thank you for uploading Image:Image:Nla.pic-an7690866-v.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation.Macr237 01:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked a user for uploading various copyvio images with false licenses. The user in question is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=&user=Trialin&page=&pattern=&limit=100&offset=0 and I believe he is a sock of a person you dealt with before. The images are Serbian related. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:Apbcp lost1.jpg

...183 headings... Time for an archive.--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 11:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only 183? I think I should wait on the archive until something breaks ;-) --Carnildo 20:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Thanks for taking care of the rfu backlog! I noticed that you chose to keep Image:Wrigley Field 1929 World Series.jpg. You might want to add {{rk}} to the images you keep this way, so they don't get re-nominated again in the future for the same concern. (I added the template for this image -- I'm just letting you know in case you want to do more rfu work -- which would be welcome!) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 03:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Now that I've got a bot to do the boring part of dealing with RFU images, I expect I'll be doing more of them. --Carnildo 04:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the article of Bethune, Saskatchewan was deleted. I am courious as to why it was deleted. If it notability, than that is an invalid reason as it would a long time to determine which articles on cities, villages, towns, hamlets, etc. are notable. Mr. C.C. 06:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted because the contents were complete and total nonsense. If you can write a good article on the community, then feel free to do so. --Carnildo 06:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could have put a clean up tag on the article instead of deleting it. But what's done is done. Mr. C.C. 06:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing there to clean up. Once you remove the made-up statistics, the nonsense, and the defamatory statements, you're left with the sentence "Bethune is in Saskatchewan". --Carnildo 06:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is a website for the village -> Village of Bethune website. It has a bit of information that could have been added to the article. All you had to do is Google it. Mr. C.C. 16:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - it looks like you deleted some images being discussed at Wikipedia:Fair_use_review/Archive_1#Japanese erotic actresses without commenting at that discussion. Did you read the discussion? In there, it looked like we had reached a consensus to delete the images that belonged to those who were active, but keep the ones for those who were retired, given that User:Dekkappai had (1) provided good evidence that retired actresses tend to be Salinger-like reclusive; and {2) promised he would be asking those he could for releases. Believe him, even more than standard Wikipedia:Assume good faith principles, Dek's a very good guy. If he says he's asking, he's asking.--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found the images through Category:Replaceable fair use images, and didn't see any discussion other than a brief exchange on one of the image talk pages. Since I wasn't convinced that the images were non-replaceable, I deleted them. If you feel the images I deleted should be kept, feel free to undelete them. (I'd do it myself, but I'm in a location where people would be less than happy about me looking at pictures of erotic actresses.) --Carnildo 20:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made the image. It´s mine. It´s an update due to the recent adoption by Equatorial Guinea of the Portuguese language. Emerson