Problems with Irvine Tidal Indicator (Irvinetideindicator.jpg). You've posted that there was a problem with this picture. I'd like to know a couple of things. There's plenty of provision in the tags for things like comic and album covers. What do buildings come under. I have a site source, would that do? If so, what image tag do I use? Douglasnicol 14:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've found an alternative picture of the same structure. The one I used had an email address which was dead, but this new one has an active email address. I've emailed the site owner, and the pic has been taken by another person on that site, so he's checking if it would be okay to use. Assuming I get permission, what would be the best image to use? Douglasnicol 13:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave VMI's site alone. The sources for the pictures have been listed and if you've got a problem call them up. Please leave the pictures alone as I have noted a number and point of contact for you on the image itself.Marshall3 22:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hey i have problems with Allan lee davis pictures, they are public and i dont get the point of what sould i do for them to remain there

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

This photograph of me was deleted for lack of documentation, and I would like to upload it again documenting it properly. However, I find the instructions on the licensing pages to be absolutely impenetrable, and I really don't know where to start. If there were a "wizard" or decision tree to help decide which license and exactly what documentation to include, that would be very helpful.

My photograph has no commercial value, and I would like to release it for noncommercial use on Wikipedia, but protect it from commercial use elsewhere. Any help including examples would be appreciated.

--Mud4t

Wikipedia requires that any images uploaded permit commercial use. This is to allow both use by Wikipedia such as a CD-based distribution of the encyclopedia, and re-use by sites such as Answers.com. --Carnildo 07:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to keep this picture if possible -- If I get the permission of the person who took the picture, how do I indicate so in the image tags? The-dissonance-reports 05:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simple permission isn't good enough. You need to get the image released under a free license such as the GFDL or a Creative Commons license. --Carnildo 03:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(original) The image is originally two promotional images, they were put together for comparison, both individual images have been approved on wikipedia. I got the new image from a website which is listed on the image page. So I don't know what the right tag is. --Killingthedream 08:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

   Depends. What is it going to be used for? --Carnildo 03:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC) 

It's for the criticism section on the Brandon Routh page. So if both images are promotional images, and both are approved by wikipedia, what is the tag if both are put together, is it still promotional or has it got to do with photo manipulation tag?--Killingthedream 18:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another version of this image already exists on commons, so please delete it. I would have done so if only I knew how. --Koppedia 10:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carnildo - saw your bot had tagged this as no license. Other (more recent) pics by the same user are tagged gfdl, so I guess this one can be tagged presumed gfdl. - MPF 11:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OrphanBot does not tag images. Image:Saltmarsh-Grass.JPG was tagged as "no license" by CLW on [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Saltmarsh-Grass.JPG&diff=38194793&oldid=26835513 4 February 2006]. --Carnildo 07:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a screenshot from a movie. That is it's copyright status.- JustPhil 11:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Carnildo, you recently uploaded Image:Pot on stove.jpg, which has no licensing information. Based on the source information you provided, you're the copyright holder, so could you hop on over there and release it under the GFDL or public domain or something to that effect? Thanks! —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 13:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have started to take some steps towards making a more copyright free version of the graph. I have taken public doman data from the OECD (same source as the graph), plus some other data which is freely avaiable, and some data from a data book, I have redone the calculations in excel and drawn a new graph which displays similar data.

If I then cite the sources of data when I upload the graph, as I calculated the lines for the graph and made the drawing, do you think that I will legally own the copyright and thus be able to sign it away ?Cadmium

If you make the image yourself from data, then yes, you do own the copyright. --Carnildo 07:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Shooting.jpg

I have made the entry, but this may have been too late. Orphanbot has deleted it. It is a lovely picture. It shows Ian Smith at the Bulawayo Farmers' Fair about two days after he became Prime Minister of Rhodesia. There was a lot of grumbling about "lazy kaffir" waiters in the beer tent and Smith picked up a rifle and took aim at one of the waiters. This caused much amusement amongst the onlookers. The picture was taken by a middle-aged reporter from the Bulawayo Times. The latter paper went defunct in 1981 and the photographer must be dead by now. The picture has been used all around the world in numerous publications and web sites. There cannot be any copyright in it.

Any chance of restoring it?.

Bob

ps : I have put a revised tag on the image and taken the liberty of restoring it to one of the articles. Hope this is OK. Bob

does that mean that the picture of dog eat dog will also be deleted from my user page? Dog Eat Dog World 16:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i found the copyright! it's Fotosearch and Photosearch are trademarks of Fotos earch, LLC All rights reserved. © 2/14/2006 [pr] yay! Dog Eat Dog World 16:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You removed a picture of a Wheeljack toy I put on the Wheeljack page. This is a picture of my toy Wheeljack I took with my digital camera. How do I add copyright info to it exactly?

Well, this image has no copyright info. Well, owners said that we can use it for only non-comercial use. Well, I don't know how to set up copyright notice on Image:Robert_Joran.jpg so can use set it insted of me...

Thanks

Wladimir 19:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We can't use images that are licensed for non-commercial use only. --Carnildo 07:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image was taken on a digital camera and uploaded to the school's website about 3 years ago. There is no known copyright on the image. I must apologize as I am still new to Wikipedia and am still learning. If you could assist me in this matter, I would be most grateful.

--GuyOfOwnage 21:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. you left this message on my talk page... "Thanks for uploading Image:Tcrannold.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: Template:TemplateName.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 00:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)" ...I thought that I had already resolved this problem with RFJFR (another user) back in October... guess not. Delete the image if you wish - I don't know the copyright owner.

Ta. ZPMMaker 21:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this image was published between 1964 and 1923. It is used on the Seevak site with no copyright clearances, renewals, notices, or attributions. These two images are public domain. --Muchosucko 21:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please wait a couple of days before deleting. Both pics are PD-old and appear on the first page of a Google image search with the full names of the persons. Thanks--J heisenberg 23:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you tell me how to find out if the picture is copyrighted or not. I want to know why you think this picture is copyrighted. This was my first picture, so i wasn't sure on how to find out the copyright of the picture. Thanks.Giantsrule 23:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems as if your bot is removing unsourced images from pages 5 days after they're marked with the unsourced tag, instead 7 as recommended. See Image:Universityofdayton.jpg. Thanks. Peyna 23:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's by design. By removing images two days before the earliest they can be deleted, it gives other users watching the article notification that the image has a problem, and a chance to fix the lack of source or copyright information. --Carnildo 00:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, thanks for the reply. Peyna 01:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

how it was probably an accident, sorry dude. How do you get or make a bot.--Gators222 00:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Gators222

I actually do want the above image that I uploaded to be deleted. --Amit 00:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this now seems deleted. --Amit 04:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a photograph that I took myself- What should I do about this? Sorry it took so long to respond. --Jimbo35353 14 Feb 2006

The image is a Charmed Season 8 Promo picture that was released before the start of season 8, I found it at http://charmed.fan-sites.org. Could you please fix the copyright as I do not know how to do it? --Chimufu 02:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop spamming me with your image warnings, I don't care. --Tykell 15:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've been added to the "don't notify" list. This will take effect the next time OrphanBot starts running. --Carnildo 18:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Sorry if this has been covered before, but I'm seeing a lot of people tagging photos as promo, and citing the IMDB. Image:Gambon3.jpg is an example. What are your thoughts on this, from experience. Copy vios, or acceptable? The JPS 20:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carnildo: Thanks for uploading Image:NES_Metroid_Map.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or ask for help at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. Thank you. -- Carnildo 13:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kris18: Thank you for notifying me about my mistake on Image:NES_Metroid_Map.jpg, but unfortunately I do not know the correct lisense. I would like to keep it on Wikipedia for use but I understand the policy and I guess I have to let it be deleted by an admin. Kris18 21:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For Bloody April, my friend is friends with the band and they said they were fine putting the picture on the site, i have problems with putting pictures up, so i need some help because i am planning to do this more in the future. as for ion dissonance, this photo is given on many sites as a promo for their cds. please also reverse this, thx.

-- User:Panasonicyouth99 20:57, 14 Feburary 2006 (UTC)

i just received an e-mail from ion dissonance's webpage stating that any pic can be used on their site. do i have to forward to u or not?

-- User:Panasonicyouth99 21:48, 16 Feburary 2006 (UTC)

What sort of permission was it? Did they give permission to use on Wikipedia, or did they give permission to release the image under a free license? The first isn't good enough; the second is. --Carnildo 04:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• the official site for iom dissonance stated as follows:

"you can use anything you want dude

peace gab.357 and id"

gabe is a member of the band and i guess moderator of the site. i guess they gave permission to let anything be used on their site as info. as for the first one, i will send an e-mail again and hopefully get a response. --User:Panasonicyouth99 08:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even if all the text has been photoshopped out? Oh well. And thanks for the heads-up about my page. Nightscream 04:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, even if the text has been photoshopped out. --Carnildo 07:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So than delete it, well I didn't know about non-comercial use... Sorry one more time...

Wladimir 15:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

Well, this image has no copyright info. Well, owners said that we can use it for only non-comercial use. Well, I don't know how to set up copyright notice on Image:Robert_Joran.jpg so can use set it insted of me...

Thanks

Wladimir 19:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

We can't use images that are licensed for non-commercial use only. --Carnildo 07:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why you can't tag images with Template:Fairusereview instead of ones that try to intiate it to be deleted ASAP. It's like you don't accept my opinion that I believe it to be fair use. --UVnet 14:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because that means that yet another person has to do all the work in finding an appropriate tag and source. Most, if not all, fair use tags require a description and source. It is the responsibility of the uploader to provide these. This is made clear during the upload process. If the uploader fails to provide the relevant information, then it will be deleted. It is not a matter of opinion. The JPS 15:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well,havent i given the source in both the summary and the licensing?the date is also visible on the photo.why are you so hell bent on delting my images?--Jayanthv86 18:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Extraordinary Machine suggested I write for your opinion: At miss-watson.org (which has a huge image gallery, virtually none of which could be used on Wikipedia), six scans were made from the Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire Movie Poster Book, including this image. There is no question that the poster book was released to promote HPatGoF; however, the poster book was released for sale, which really is my only cause for concern. I have since uploaded a lower-res copy of the image here. Please feel free to comment on whether this image qualifies to lead the Emma Watson article (I have yet to link it, pending this outcome) and if my rationale for Fair Use is sufficient. :) RadioKirk talk to me 21:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest not using it, since doing so does compete directly with commercial use of it. As far as I can tell, the book it's from is a collection of images and information on the actors, which is also a pretty good description of our encyclopedia articles. Try finding something with no commercial value, such as a press kit publicity image. Other options would be a movie screenshot (small part of a commercial work) or a movie poster (promotional image for a commercial work) --Carnildo 05:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, help me so I follow this, especially for future reference: How does using the image compete with its commercial use? I wonder because this is a low-res copy and, if anything, it would seem to promote sales of the poster book before it would hinder them. (BTW, a poster and a screenshot are the current images on Emma Watson.) RadioKirk talk to me 05:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Also, it occurs to me, the poster book may no longer be on store shelves as the film is no longer in first-run release—in fact, the video/DVD release is next month. RadioKirk talk to me 05:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it could possibly affect sales in that someone wanting an image of Watson or this particular image, could download it from here rather than buy the book. I don't think it's very likely to happen, but I think that's what could be argued even if the book is no longer for sale. I think you could make a good fair use claim for it, but even so I don't think it's the best option. I agree with Carnildo that a screenshot would be a better option. As Watson does not always look "in character" as Hermione, a well chosen screenshot image would serve to illustrate her both as "herself" and as the character. Rossrs 20:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, would it be even less "likely to happen" if I uploaded an even smaller-res version of the image, or would you still suggest a screenshot? Thanks again for your attention. RadioKirk talk to me 20:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution is something of a red herring when it comes to fair use. For album covers, it matters: a 300x300 scan of a cover simply cannot look good when printed out, so we're protected against accusations that we're contributing to music piracy by providing a gallery of album covers. For something like pornography, even a 100x100 thumbnail could be a copyvio, since the image could function as a replacement for the original. I think the image in question tends towards the "pornography" end of the spectrum: as long as the image is high-resolution enough to be useful for us, it's high-resolution enough to infringe copyright. --Carnildo 22:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. RadioKirk talk to me 22:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Wikipedia:Proposed wheel warring policy has died down, so I've decided to hold a straw poll. Feel free to go there, write a statement supporting your proposal, and register your support or opposition to the proposals. — Phil Welch 01:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i have already emailed the owner of the picture but have yet to recieve any reply...its been months since i uploaded it mate....

the pic can be found in http://www.dpccars.com/photos/10-25-04page-Mitsubishi-Lancer-Evolution-IX.htm

Hi Carnildo, I would appreciate if you could answer my question about the statistics you gave on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Vandalism_policy, Thanks Arniep 14:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image I uploaded was purely an enlargement of the original image on the page. How does this NOW create a copyright problem?--Light current 00:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

You recently left a comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruin Mist about articles related to the author Robert Stanek. You may like to know that the page on the man himself is now up for deletion; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Stanek. I avoided merging the two together as I felt that the arguments for deleting the pages on the fiction didn't quite apply to the page on the writer, but thought it best to let you know in case you wanted to participate in this related discussion. Shimgray | talk | 01:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I don't think I have seen Orphanbot running in a while. I think orphanbot forms an indespensible part of our fight agains improperly copyrighted images being used on wikipedia. I hope there isn't a problem with it's continued use. --Martyman-(talk) 06:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been doing a re-write of the code for accessing Wikipedia to make it more reliable, and the changes are big enough that I don't want to leave the bot running without direct supervision. I don't want to wake up one morning and find that the bot has wiped out all Unicode interwikis, or that it stopped running after three images because it couldn't find someone's talk page. --Carnildo 07:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's good to know. Wouldn't want to lose one of our hardest workers. --Martyman-(talk) 08:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering if there is anyway for orphanbot to let people know who tagged the image as missing source/license info. Then it could direct poeple to the tagger and take the load off your talk page, which seems to get a constant stream of people complaining or asking questions about the images. --Martyman-(talk) 21:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be pretty good, yes! There's a couple of times where identical questions and responses have appeared here, the uploader's and my talk pages. I've attempted to pull my weight by responding to queries about images I tagged. The JPS 22:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if I could manage that. Problem is, figuring out the tagger is a very difficult task, and one that has no good answer. Most "no copyright" tags are applied by the uploader, since the "I don't know" and "found the image somewhere" license options both apply the {{no license}} tag. Further, incorrect "fair use because" and "public domain because" templates get redirected to {{no license}} on a regular basis. {{no source}} tags are usually applied by someone other than the uploader, but "no source" is a problem that's fairly easy to understand, so I don't get many questions from it. --Carnildo 22:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe then you could get a list of volanteers together that questions about the images could go to. For example somthing like. For quesitons about the functioning of this bot please contact Carnildo, if you want more information on why this image has been removed please contact one of the editors at wikiproject XYZ. or maybe a list of poeple available to answer questions or a single person picked from a list by the bot. --Martyman-(talk) 22:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be up for that, I also rely on orphanbot a lot, but wouldn't mind at all some method where I could help answer the questions, I actually like helping people with tagging. Maybe if editors had a very defined edit summary the bot could look for to include in the user message. A way to let orphanbot know which edit added the no license/no source tag? - cohesion★talk 23:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This map was published in 1544. Do you think that copyrights are still valid? Calmouk 20:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you certain about "OrphanBot does not delete images." Because I went to look at the image to see what exactly the problem was and the image had already been deleted, without giving me any chance to review the image in question and see what the problem is?
JesseG 17:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely certain. Only a few people on Wikipedia have the ability to delete images, and OrphanBot isn't one of them. In this case, the deletion log indicates that it was deleted by CLW. --Carnildo 22:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After reading CLW's user talk page, it looks like this isn't the first time that CLW has jumped the gun, so to speak, about image deletion. It looks like back in January that CLW deleted another image without giving the editor who put the image there a chance to review the image and explain its copyright status.

JesseG 03:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took it upon myself to try and explain to Jesster79 what had happened to their image and why, and got lashed out at in return. They still don't seem to understand the proccess that is gone through for these images though. They keep claiming it was Orphanbot that had the problem with their image, you might want to try and explain it to them. --Martyman-(talk) 04:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you make your bot remove the above image from all it's file links. Apparently, it's copyright, to my displeasure. ;-( Anyways, could you do it? Moe ε 06:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Working on it. Assuming nothing goes wrong, OrphanBot should finish the job in about three hours. --Carnildo 08:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carnildo. Your bot removed a couple of images from the $100 laptop article. The original uploader seems to have not tagged them correctly. If you have no objections I will be reinserting them into the article using the promotional fair use tag. Cheers, jacoplane 11:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi just wanted to let you know that OrphanBot removed an image from my talk page archive (it was a users signature). I am not sure if that was intended because on the OprhanBot userpage it says: OrphanBot does not edit user pages. Just thought I'd let you know since it may or may not be a bug. Mike _{(T C)} 16:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the user found that the image he was using in his signature wasn't as free as he though, so he asked me to remove it. I temporarily removed the limits from OrphanBot to do this. --Carnildo 17:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok perfect, I just thought you should know since it did seem outside the limits listed. Thanks for running this bot, it saves a HELL of a lot of time. Mike _{(T C)} 18:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I have a question, why is it that the message says the image may be deleted soon (paraphrasing) yet most of the time the images have been deleted before I can make the necessary correction? Dstorres

Carnildo - Could you change the signature OrphanBot leaves on talk pages to include the date & time? This would be useful in my image activities and seems to be standard procedure anyway. Thanks! -SCEhardT 00:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hello. This is in response to your comments on my talk page. I created that banner, and I stated it as such when I uploaded it. I tagged it with the appropriate tag so i dont know why you think it isn't tagged unless I did something wrong in the process. TruthCrusader 01:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you again, but can I put this image back? I corrected its status ages ago. - The Great Gavini ^talk 17:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks. Moe ε 20:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They were all removed. We obviously own the rights to our photographs. How do we keep them from being removed by your machine? Thank You— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jczup (talk • contribs)

Tagging the images correctly and stating who the author is would help. You must always provide some sort of description. If you didn't take the photographs yourself, then you must always provide a source (i.e. the specific URL). The JPS 03:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Am I missing some humor in this edit or did you did you just mistaken FLC with AfD? Renata 06:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's my way of indicating that not only do I not think it should be a featured list, it should not be in Wikipedia at all. --Carnildo 07:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok. But you lost me there :) Renata 13:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given the source image which I assumed at the time was under the GFDL has been deleted, I believe all the maps I generated from it, including File:Calf of Eday.PNG, File:Eday.PNG, File:Burray.PNG and many others will have to go. Warofdreams talk 13:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Turkish_Armed_Forces.gif. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to indicate why we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies under Wikipedia's fair use guidelines, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you want the image to be deleted, tag it as {{db-unksource}}.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have any concerns, contact the bot's owner: Carnildo. 11:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image is the logo of Turkish Armed Forces. I have added the official website and image is visible :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 15:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is more important -making wikipedia comprehensive, or worrying about who created what image? I don't have the technology to copy and recreate the flat myself, but it is important that it is in wikipedia because it is of historial interest - what do you suggest????????? Rhyddfrydol 18:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Worrying about who created what image is more important. If someone sues Wikipedia into oblivion over copyright infringements, it's hard to make it comprehensive. --Carnildo 20:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surely a town's coat of arms that has been around for hundreds of years doesn't have copyright? Gsd2000 23:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Depends. The part of the coat of arms that's been around for hundreds of years is the textual description (see blazon). The image is a given artist's interpretation of that description, and is subject to the same copyright laws as any other work of art (and may also be covered by trademark law or laws relating to coats of arms). --Carnildo 00:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright info on the picture was correct, apparently the wrong tag was used in error. I made the correction to {{Promophoto}} that you yourself could have easily made. Maybe it's me, but putting {{no license}} there when the copyright information was right in front of you was really lame. Have a nice day. --CJ Marsicano 01:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed your delete tag from the image and posted the following notice clarifying my position on Wikipedia's use of the image:

Notice from the photographer/copyright owner, 02:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC): I am the photographer and copyright owner of this photographic work, and I myself have uploaded the photograph to Wikipedia for the item in question. Obviously I am more than willing to allow the photograph to be used for any non-profit purpose by Wikipedia. I only ask for the following.

• Proper copyright credit given. I already took care of that when I uploaded the photo.
• A simple notification if this image is used for any other purpose (i.e., other than on this site) by Wikipedia, or by anyone else. If Wikipedia does their infamous DVD-ROM set or whatever, all they have to do is e-mail me at minimoniotaku@gmail.com -- there is a 99.99% possibility I will say yes anyway.

End of story. If anyone has any questions, they can e-mail me. My e-mail address obviously isn't hard to find. --CJ Marsicano 02:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC) (This message duplicated on the item's talk page and on the talk page of the person that tagged it for deletion.)[reply]

That's not good enough. Wikipedia requires user-created images to be uploaded under a free license such as the GFDL or a Creative Commons license, which basically means allowing three additional things in addition to the permissions you are granting:

1. The ability for entities other than Wikipedia to use the images.
2. The ability to use the images commercially. This permits Wikipedia to do things like sell CD-ROM versions of the encyclopedia to offset server costs, and it permits re-users like Answers.com to exist.
3. The ability to create derivative works.

See Wikipedia:Image use policy for more information on this. --Carnildo 02:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing of the image is now CC2.5 so that both I as the copyright holder and Wikipedia as the user I have granted permission to are happy. I have some fundamental problems with the GDFL at present, so there is no way I could see licensing under those guidelines. --CJ Marsicano02:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't send me these notices. If the images are deemed unacceptable, delete them. Adam 07:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added you to the list of people not to notify. This will take effect the next time OrphanBot starts running. --

Carnildo 07:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

he thanks for the message, I was unsure about the picture. But I wonder if it could be used as a fair-use? I will send a email to surfrider foundation and ask them. Hurkummer 09:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

== I'm not sure how to tag the image with correct copyright information. G_leonard_195.jpg was taken from ESPN's website, I included it in the summary which specific page it was from. AntiG

Please see Summary of this picture. There you can see link to site where I took a pic. After that is webmaster's premission that any pic from that site can be used on Wikipedia. Premission is on Serbo-Croatian. --M. Pokrajac 11:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The photo that you put a deletion tag, has been restored with the appropriate copyright. Pkazz 11:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your bot has annoyed me on multiple occassions. It is clear that a human must read the text associated with the image, and consider how or why the image was orphaned. I hope you stop using this bot until you can augment its lack of intelligence with a human brain. Here are some examples of its lack of its poor behaviour:

1. image:pengo.gif was deleted because it appeared to be orphaned, but the associated file had only had its name changed. Read about it here: Talk:Pengo (game)

1. Image:Collectivevision.jpg was deleted dispite having ample copyright and licensing information associated. The license, while similar to several existing licenses, did not fit one exactly. Consequently the image was deleted ALONG WITH THE LICENSING INFORMATION. Email from the copyright holder had even been forwarded to the appropriate wikipedia email address. Very, very annoying.

1. Image:P1070285 unknown duck.jpg has stated in the text clearly that I wish the file to be deleted, but still i get a long diatribe on my user page about it. A less significant, but unnecessary annoyance.

Worse still, there is no indication of how or why the files deleted have been so, and this is the first time i have found an avenue to complain.

—Pengo 01:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Humans are involved in tagging them as no source/orphaned, and the bots simply respond to that 'command'. I'm sure that ignoring some text on your talk page isn't that difficult. I can assure you that it is much more annoying to see the project put at risk because hundreds of 'contributors' upload any images they find without citing accurate (if any) source information. The JPS 01:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JPS, Your agressive response is not helpful and does not address my concerns. The text I was referring to was on the image pages, and not my talk page. —Pengo 02:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for civility and politeness. That was straight to the point. Text, without paralinguistic cues, can be taken a lot of ways. Accuisations, such as "aggressive" and "not helpful" cannot. The JPS 11:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded on Pengo's talk page with specific explanations of what happened to his images. --Martyman-(talk) 02:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Martyman for the detailed and informative response. It has been most helpful. As a general note, it's unfortunate that I would need an admin to tell me why images have been deleted, or how to go request a redundant one be deleted. —Pengo 02:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You recently expressed interest in helping people with putting the correct copyright tags on their images. I've created a page for people notified by OrphanBot to ask about image tagging: User talk:Carnildo/images. If you could keep an eye on it and help answer questions, that would be appreciated. --Carnildo 05:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, thanks for contacting me and thanks a lot for running the bot, it's indispensable. - cohesion★talk 06:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carnildo, I like the work done by Orphanbot in tagging unsourced images and notifying the uploaders on their talkpages. More often than not, some anons register to upload pics and upload them wrongly. The very first messages on the talkpage are usually by the orphanbot and the new users are confused. Can you program the bot in such a way that it leaves a {{subst:welcome}} on such pages. Can the orphan bot also add a link to WP:IUP or other relevant pages so that the people do not end up repeating the same offence again and again? Thanks for your time, --Gurubrahma 16:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The general consensus on Wikipedia is that welcoming users is not something that bots should be doing. As for your other suggestion, I'll see about it. I've been trying to come up with a better wording for the messages for a while now. --Carnildo 00:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Image:A_Huston.jpg

Hi, and thanks for your message. I've said this at least a hundred times in answer to queries such as yours, and okay, I'm going to say it again:

(1) I uploaded the image you are referring to back in those days when Wikipedia tags had not yet been invented, and no one was asked to cite any sources. If there had been any such requirements, I would have fulfilled them to the best of my knowledge.

(2) In the course of the following years, I tried to update the image descriptions by adding the appropriate tags, but as the text within these image tags is continuously being changed the descriptions again and again turned out to be inadequate. For example, an image such as Image:Haider in Carinthia.jpg, a promotional photo (I even said so in the caption on the Jörg Haider page) taken from the FPÖ web site—back then, Haider is no longer a member of the FPÖ—, has been able to pass for a fair use image for more than three years; now suddenly all this is no longer valid. But what on earth could I do about it now?

(3) A photographer from Vienna, Conny de Beauclair, has a web site with thousands of his own images from the last 20 years. He seems to enjoy the wide circulation of his (free) images, and I e-mailed him just to make sure. I uploaded three of his pictures for Wikipedia, two of which—Waris Dirie's and Franz Antel's—have again been removed, the former as a "possible (?!?) copyright violation", the latter without any comment. The third one is Kurt Waldheim's, which, all of a sudden, is contentious, too. Again: What can I do other than stop uploading images altogether?

(4) I very much appreciate the idea of a collaborative effort, but my idea does not include working against each other. This has been happening for years now, especially on the actors' and actresses' pages: User A (me, for example) uploads a "safe" image (an old publicity still—for example of Lauren Bacall—or a screenshot), and then User B (in many cases a newbie) comes along, deletes the image and replaces it with a "better" picture, which is copyrighted and removed again within days. In the meantime, the original picture is gone of course and can no longer be retrieved.

(5) The past has shown that I never seem to be able to choose the "right" tag for an image I uploaded, so I'm not going to try again. If you can't find a tag yourself and you think it's necessary or if it makes you happy, please delete all those images. <KF> 09:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I see two weeks have passed since the pedo case closed. Do you want to be nominated for adminship? :) Johnleemk | Talk 10:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not just yet. The whole wheel war mess is too fresh in everyone's minds. Perhaps in a month or so. --Carnildo 20:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carnildo, I was hoping you could help me figuring out the proper copyright status of this image (Image:Metro system.png) before I send List of Mexico City metro stations to FLC. The problem here, is the use of the station logos in the map. Since they were created to identify the stations I'd assume it would not be a problem if they were distributed in this context, but then I only know so much about copyright law in the US...

Note that the layout itself is not a problem, since that's how the lines are actually laid on the city, and this is just a redrawing.

Many thanks! -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 15:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good to me, although the image description page should have a note that the logos are not the creation of the author. My concern is the choice of font for the map: on a high-resolution monitor like mine, the lettering of the station names is almost unreadable. --Carnildo 00:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your invaluable help! I can certify the problem with the font size (which I didn't realize before becuase I know where each station is by heart) so I'll probably just take this as an excuse to redraw the map in svg :-) -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 01:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has sent me two of the same message. Make it stop.Dark Hummingbird 20:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do you source an image you or someone you know made? Your bot says I need a source. Thanks. ~~Antidote

The GFDL requires that the author's copyright statement be included with the image. For images you created yourself, the template {{GFDL-self}} should be used. For images that other people created and have released under the GFDL, use the template {{GFDL}}, and put the author's copyright statement (something like "Copyright (c) 2006 Joe Smith") underneath. --Carnildo 08:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Carnildo, I've recently put Eric A. Havelock up for peer review, and I was wondering if you'd be willing to take a look. In particular, I was hoping you could vet the two fair use images there (the bottom two), though I'd be grateful for any other advice you might have. I'm planning to post it at FAC in a week or two. I'd appreciate it--thanks! Chick Bowen 00:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems orphan bot is complaining about this image. I have tagged it copyright free on the russian government basis as listed. Is there an issue with that? Benjamin Gatti 01:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does have a copyright tag, {{Comiccover}}

Hi, I have been informed by the bot that the picture I've uploaded has no source. It's only for promotional purposes, and it's taken from http://pdf.lahamag.com -- the Arabic Laha Magazine PDF website. I haved edited the image credits. I hope I'd be able to retrieve it to Ahlam's page. Thank you, Omernos

Looks good to me. --Carnildo 01:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both of the images that I have posted were made over 80 years ago. They appear in no publications and I am certain they are not copyrighted by anyone. How can I tag them to please you?

I notice someone keeps taking the Marada_Brigade emblem off its site. It can be justified as a Marada Emblem on http://www.elmarada.com

Thanks

I've removed all the pictures from the list, so, could you withdraw your objection? Or else help tagging the pictures. This last option is the obviously the best. I've changed the status of the majority of the pictures you pointed as problematic. It would be great if you took a look at them and tell me if they still have problems and how can I solve them. Thanks! Afonso Silva 20:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Afonso Silva 20:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah i think i did mention the source of the photo... it was the case with all my photos. how do i get them back ?

So, what are your thoughts on also making orphanbot orphan fairusedisputed tagged content? A standard procedure for me in dealing with bogus fair use is to orphan it, tag is as orphaned, and if the orphaning sticks... it gets deleted. It works in the cases where no one disputes the removal.. Completely fails otherwise, but orphanbot's messages are nice and uniform, so I think even in those cases it would be useful. --Gmaxwell 16:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a technical level, it's a very simple change. 30 seconds or so to code up the parameters for removing the images, a minute or two to write up a notification template if we want to notify the uploader, and it's ready to go. My concern is about the increase in traffic to my talk page and OrphanBot's talk page, and that newer users will blame me for tagging, removing, and deleting the disputed images. --Carnildo 18:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand... very much understand. :) In fact, avoiding the negative attention was at least as much of a factor in asking you rather than doing it with roomba, as was trying to avoid duplicating code you've obviously got well worked out. Perhaps we could make a new bot account which is operated by committee to help reduce the personal nature of the negative responses? --Gmaxwell 19:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about registering the bot as being part of Wikipedia:Fair use review? --Carnildo 03:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. --Gmaxwell 23:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually just noticed a lot of rather hostile somewhat misinformed comments on this page and others. I don't know how to program bots, but I, and I'm sure many other people on the image tagging project, would happily take the weight of responding to people off your hands if you want. Your bot informs way more people than you actually tag, it's only fair that we help answer questions. I know you have set up User talk:Carnildo/images but if you ever feel like you can't take it anymore and want to hide from the masses I think there would be enough people willing to help. Again, thanks so much for running the bot, the project would probably fall apart without it. - cohesion^t 05:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I researched that image a lot. Did not know what licence it should be. It Did not seem to belong to any of them. Looked at one of them, which said "edit any way you please". That was not how she said it. Maybe a Creative Commons, but am not sure the non-creator can do so.

Carnildo: I downloaded those images from the official website of Beijing Jiaotong University. I don't know the authors of those images---except I assumed that the university authority would agree with the use of those images in a Wikipedia entry about their university. --Roland 21:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

"I believe they would agree with the use" isn't good enough. Wikipedia requires the images to be explicitly released under a free license, such as the GFDL or one of the Creative Commons licenses that allows re-use and commercial use. --Carnildo 03:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete it! after alli only uploaded it along with all the other images you people are telling me to delete! FuCk YoU — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark Magician (talk • contribs)

Dark Magician your above post is unacceptable. Carnildo is a hard working user who cares about doing what is best for the project. He isn't trying to hurt you, and he doesn't deserve your mean words. Please retract them. --Gmaxwell 23:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, This image come from "Plants of Hawaii". So this image is on public domain ({{PD-USGov}}) -- Pixeltoo 11:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your OrphanBot left me a message about a photo on Wikipedia, and it's copywright. I have no idea how to mark it or anyhting, so could you explain how I would tag it to say it came from their myspace page, please...thank you - Simon

Heh, I forgot I ever uploaded that screenshot. I have no use for it, so it can be deleted. Thunderbrand 16:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I placed the edit summary of this pic as "from the Istana,Singapore website.Do reconsider about deleting it.--Tdxiang 陈 鼎 翔 (Talk) Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 01:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a reply to your objection on the Roman Vishniac FAC, please respond. Thank you. -- Rmrfstar 13:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Could you please revisit this FAC and rethink your objection. -- Rmrfstar 13:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me. I know that you did not withdraw your objection, but your reason does not relate at all to the article in its current form: the Children cover has been removed and A Vanished World now has critical commentary next to it. If you still object for some reason, please specify your new concern and respond to my comments in a timely fashion. -- Rmrfstar 05:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The other images I objected to are still there. --Carnildo 07:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, I was rushing and forgot about those... but you still have not shown anyone what policy I am violating. I can find no page which necessitates critical commentary for fair use images. -- Rmrfstar 15:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded again. Please explain how you can object the FAC in accordance with policy. -- Rmrfstar 02:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your bot complained about : Image:Boßelstrecke wbkoog.JPG

It is an image from the german wiki, as is explained on the image page. Would you be able to help resolve the matter? Sam Spade 20:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-tagged it as {{no license}}. If you want to complain, talk to the person who tagged it, User:Urshyam, who's been rather indiscriminantly flagging everything without a license tag as "no source". --Carnildo 00:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in this case its less amatter of complaining, and more amatter of trying to find my way thru the copyright bureaucracy (which isn't exactly my area, if you havn't noticed ;)

The image in question has acreative commons copyright, as evidenced here:

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Bo%C3%9Felstrecke_wbkoog.JPG

where I found it... Can you give me any advice or assistance as to what to do? Thank you, Sam Spade 06:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest tagging it as {{cc-by-sa-2.0}}, and asking someone who speaks German to verify that the rest of the text on the German image description page is consistent with the claimed license. --Carnildo 07:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Sam Spade 08:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you tell me what program you used in order to create Image:Autobiography-weekly-performance.png? Thanks! —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Is it possible if you could convert chart trajectories at an article into a graph? —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was leaving the template on the images so any interested poles could modify the copyright in the next 7 days.--nixie 00:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in turning this into a fight, but I thought your remarks were rather insulting of my intentions. I hope I wasn't too harsh, especially not so harsh as to discourage a satisfactory resolution to this issue, in my response to your comments. Cheers, Tomer^talk 07:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does the German wikipedia (the Dutch or Scandinavian wikipedias) have and specific official policy on this?Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian)(talk)

Please check User talk:OrphanBot. -- User:Docu

I blocked your bot as this problem has not been addressed. -- User:Docu

There is no problem. OrphanBot is functioning perfectly. If you want to block someone, block User:Urshyam, who tagged the image in the first place. --Carnildo 08:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, i made a mistake. I will be more careful. Thanks for notifying. Shyam ^(T/C) 08:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for doing this survey. I'm not surprised, though, and I hope you weren't, either. I believe we do quite a good job hunting down text copyvios, but we do a far worse job with imagevios and mistaggings. The problem is not limited to the English Wikipedia; the Commons also suffers from false PD claims (as do we, too—the problem isn't limited to "fair use", either).

I believe in the long run, the only solution will be to restrict uploads: any upload goes into a queue and can be used in articles only when it has been approved by someone. Who these someones should be, I don't know; I guess they would need to be appointed by the Foundation. If and when certain uploaders have shown to know what kind of images to upload and how to tag them and are considered trustworthy uploaders, they may be granted the privilege to upload directly, bypassing the approval queue. Images wrongly tagged or without sufficient source information may be removed from the queue without further ado, and people who repeatedly upload images may have their upload privilege removed. The latter might even be automated with some software support, e.g. such that people who have more than 50% of their uploads rejected from the queue and have a total number of uploads of at least 10 automatically are no longer allowed to upload files at all. Lupo 10:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carnildo. Your Orphanbot has been alerting me to several images I posted without proper copyright information. However, rather than giving me the seven days required to allow me to find the information, it appears to be deleting them shortly after informing. I'm not sure if this is a malfunction or not, but it's quite annoying not being given notice (even if there are copyright problems). Evolver of Borg 11:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OrphanBot does not and is not capable of deleting images.

That aside, there's no rule requiring that you be notified seven days before the image is deleted, or even notified at all. The specific rule is that an image without proper source or copyright information can be deleted starting seven days after it is uploaded. This is usually interpreted as being seven days after the image is identified and tagged as being a "no source" or "no copyright" image.

OrphanBot does not notify people about all images. In order to prevent prolific uploaders from being flooded with notices, OrphanBot will notify someone about no more than one image a day, the idea being that they will then check every image they uploaded to ensure that they have provided the information needed. Notifications are usually issued about six days before the image is eligible for deletion.

To give uploaders (or anyone else who may be watching) a final warning, OrphanBot will remove an image from every page using it no more than two days before it becomes eligible for deletion.

--Carnildo 08:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carnildo, do you know of any way of tagging articles that have an excessive number of claimed fair use images? Two examples : Ascension (Stargate) (11 fair use images) and Chanel Cole (an astonishing 22 fair use images!). Both are listed on cleanup, and with the latter article I've been communicating with the uploader who is very reluctant to co-operate. There were 24 images, I explained to him that most needed to be removed and he removed 2 of them with a sarcastic edit summary :-) Great response. Have been in contact with him since but I'm not getting anywhere. Short of just removing the images from the articles, which I'm sure with the latter article will just be reverted, can you please suggest what should be done? thank you. Rossrs 13:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know someone (possibly User:Gmaxwell) came up with a report of the most widely-used fair-use images; he might be able to create a report on articles with too many fair-use images.

For actually getting images removed, try contacting Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use or Wikipedia:Fair use review. --Carnildo 08:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Carnildo. I'll keep all of this in mind. The Chanel Cole article has gone from 22 to zero fair use images as a result of being tagged "cleanup". Plus in addition to removing the images, the text has been improved, so I'm happy with that. I'll follow your suggestions for any others I happen to find. Rossrs 13:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted this response at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bruce Johnson to the concern about photos: "The press office of the Ohio Department of Development, of which Johnson is director, informs me by e-mail 'We do not have copyright on the photos.'" PedanticallySpeaking 14:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the above. -- User:Docu

I placed a {{logo}} tag on the image. I hope this is the right one. -- Eddie, Sunday March 12, 2006 at 2:26 PM (UTC)

Can you please make the notice shorter? How about directing people to a page "with more info".

By the way I have placed Image:Tosbar1.png for speedy deletion.

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 18:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've modified the message to be similar to the "no source" message:

==Image copyright problem with {{{1}}}==

Thanks for uploading [[:{{{1}}}]]. 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 User talk:Carnildo/images.

Any suggestions for improved wording or other links that should be included? --Carnildo 03:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

if you notice it says FAA diagram in box. every airport page has those diagrams from their websit... urban909

The planes are property of the Military of Peru, Thus the pictures are not something that can be copyrighted. I don't understand why all the problem with that. Even, those pics can be claimed to be Fair use, right? Messhermit 03:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dead wrong and no. The ownership of the planes is completely irrelevant to the copyrightability of pictures of the planes. And on Wikipedia, "fair use" can only be claimed if it is impossible to get pictures any other way: see Wikipedia:Fair use. --Carnildo 03:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up to #Mis-use of image tags above: see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Help needed with image uploads from one user. It's most frustrating to know that when that account is blocked indefinitely (yes, I feel that's "when", not "if"), the person will just continue editing and uploading under a new user name (see User:DW...). I really think it's time to grant the upload privilege only to trusted users, as outlined in my earlier statement above. Lupo 10:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I determined that the user just will not follow the copyright rules, so I indef. blocked. Also, I will try to clean up his mess at the Commons [1]. He was using the Commons as a dumping ground for a Wikimemorial project, and I do not think pictures from the Commons are able to be used on non-WM projects. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 18:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't something that is really my expertise at all and I don't really want to get into a revert war over this because it isn't that big of a deal to me, but I was hoping that you could add some input on Wikipedia's policys concerning the misuse of fairuse images, specifically in user pages at User:CrazyInSane. I removed images that I thought were copyright violations on his user page, but he persistantly reverts stating that it isn't against policy. If I'm wrong, just let me know, but I don't think thats the case. K1Bond007 22:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Using non-free images on userpages is not permitted. I don't know if WP:IUP mentions it, but Wikipedia:Fair use is quite clear. --Carnildo 22:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was. Thank you for helping here. :) K1Bond007 01:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i posted a followup to your comment on my user discussion page, thanks. --Jeff 01:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Orphanbot made two edits that are confusing me. It removed these two images from an article even though the images are tagged {{PD}}. Is this expected behavior? Thanks. Image:FivePointsStreets.gif Image:FivePointsStreets 1800.gif --ChrisRuvolo (t) 13:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I now see the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Help needed with image uploads from one user. I find this highly irregular. Many of the images uploaded are from before 1923, so I don't understand why they are being removed in bulk. Please clarify. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 13:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, this user has tagged images in an arbitrary way, including PD claims on images to which he doesn't hold the copyright. And created pre-1923 doesn't mean published pre-1923. I agree that most of these very old images might be OK. But as a stop-gap measure, OrphanBot was run and has removed the images from the articles. It's now our job (unfortunately ours, since the uploader either didn't want to help (and can't right now, for he's blocked for 5 days), or doesn't know how to properly tag images. In any case, he cannot be trusted to do it right. If you find an image that you think is OK, just clean up the tagging and re-insert it in the article. But do a Google search for the image first, to make sure that the PD claim is not spurious. Lupo 13:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You expressed concern over the photos on Bruce Johnson in your remarks at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Bruce_Johnson. As I have removed the offending images, would you now support the article's candidacy? PedanticallySpeaking 16:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights#Norwegian_defense_or_government_images. Can you help?Inge 21:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It took some digging, but I was able to verify some of the David Choe article. I have rewritten it in part to give it a slightly more encyclopedic style, and removed some of the unsupported generalities. David Choe's work is quite extraordinary. Did you take the time to visit some of the external links that the original author provided? I have also urged the original author User:Eelysium to provide data on some of the prizes that David Choe has won, and exactly which museums house his work. I have removed the {{prod]] tag because I do feel (after investigation) that David Choe's work is notable, even if he is only thirty. Bejnar 07:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia_talk:Bots#Complaint

Sam Spade 08:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you may or may not have realized that the "campaign" to save 3055 was a joke. Thought I'd better let you know lest you went away with the wrong impression. --BostonMA 21:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know OrphanBot blanked Akatsuki (Naruto) (and was promptly warned and reverted by Tawkerbot2) - not sure if that issue comes on. -- Tawker 18:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Looks like Wikipedia malfunctioned, causing OrphanBot to mess up. --Carnildo 22:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I was wondering if you could make a modification to the orphanbot.

Currently, it pretty much de-links pages without warning. I mean, I understand that it puts a warning on the actual image page, but nobody ever sees that. As a result, I've found a lot of useful pictures are deleted by disinterested administrators, before anybody even realises it. There is nobody really checking whether the image has a right to be there.

So I was wondering if it would be possible for Orphanbot to add a warning on the discussion pages of the articles where an image is used. This at least ensures that somebody might notice that the picture is going to be deleted before it's too late.

Thanks--Notmyname 15:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, OrphanBot notifies the uploader of the image -- the person most likely to care about and be able to fix problems -- as soon as it encounters a "no source"- or "no license"-tagged image. This gives them at least five days to fix the problem. It removes the image from any articles using it a day or two before it is eligable for deletion, which gives the next-most-likely group -- people with the article on their watchlists -- a chance at fixing the problem. What additional benefit would placing a notice on the talk page provide, and would it justify the tens of thousands of notices that would be placed? --Carnildo 21:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a month since I talked to you on that (fine, not exactly -- so sue me). Come on, you know you want to... Johnleemk | Talk 15:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This User:KocjoBot is removing :pl Links, for what reason, I don´t know. I Think he must be blocked. See [2] -- Andro96 18:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing I can do about it. I don't run that bot, and I'm not an admin right now. Try posting on Wikipedia talk:Bots and WP:AN/I. --Carnildo 21:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain your opposition to my RfA? Your comment of "censorship is a mortal sin" doesn't appear to apply to my candidacy, and is one that I agree with. --Carnildo 03:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that you were the guy who went around banning people who said they were pedophiles. As I look more closely, I see you were actually the one defending people's right to do so. I'm sorry for the mistake. I change my vote. -lethe ^{talk +} 03:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this admin promised to avoid wheel wars, and you can see how long that particular resolution lasted. Given the extreme difficulty of desysopping someone without Jimbo's direct intervention, I don't really feel the risk is worth taking on your word alone, particularly as you seem to show little remorse for your actions. Kirill Lokshin 04:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your request for me to reconsider my RfA vote. I just can't. Particularly considering, as I've said, how many potentially-good admins get turned down for lesser reasons than this. Wherever the cutoff is, some of those people who get turned down are above you in the queue. - Richardcavell 05:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to address your concerns with the images in this page. I'm not exactly sure what you want in some cases. Please take a look and let me know if I have fixed things correctly. -- Samuel Wantman 07:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By what process can I find out the source of an image posted in a foreign language? I think the information is there, but without being able to read what the page actually says, what should I do? -- Samuel Wantman 04:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Babel. There are a million registered users on Wikipedia. I'm sure at least one of them can read any language you need. --Carnildo 07:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like your opinion on using photos from this site on Wikipedia. The author says OK for educational purposes and his pictures only. If you think they can be, what would you use as a correct copyright tag? Thanks. LookNorth 07:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Educational use only" isn't a copyright condition that Wikipedia accepts. One of Wikipedia's goals is to make its material freely re-usable by anyone, and allowing restrictions such as "no commercial use" or "educational use only" interferes with this goal. --Carnildo 06:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carnildo, thanks for looking at this and giving me the answer. LookNorth 01:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your "OrphanBot" left me a message asking about the copyright status of the image. I don't know and I don't care about it, so you may delete it. Jareand 20:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:MSInfoPath2003.jpg - I tried to find a softwarecover-type template but couldn't - are these not acceptable? Thanks Carnildo :). Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 00:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike the cover of a video game, the cover of a piece of general software doesn't tell you much about the software. Since the images aren't under a free license, and don't provide much useful information, it's better not to use them on Wikipedia. --Carnildo 07:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Carnildo ! Why did you remove my additions on the List of unusual personal names, claiming they were "unsourced" ? There is a wikipedia entry for all of them, so I think they are all pretty well sourced. Mrbluesky 06:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is sourced that people with those names exist, yes, but I didn't find any sources for the names being considered unusual. Further, one of the names, Smush Parker, appears to be a nickname, and nicknames are supposed to be unusual. --Carnildo 07:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point for Smush Parker, but how could I prove that Picabo or World (or, for that matter, Zowie) are unusual ? How many Picaboes do you know ? The only thing I could do would be to produce statistics sorted by names given to babies ! Mrbluesky 13:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't. You just need to prove that they are considered unusual. Most of the names on the list cite newspaper articles on the unusualness of the name. --Carnildo 18:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message, I have added the appropriate copyright source tag. :) -- Sarz 09:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see that OrphanBot's message includes the sentence "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." That suggests the image will be deleted in no more than seven days' time, which isn't the case. The image will be deleted in no less than seven days' time. Maybe it should read "... it may be deleted after seven days." Angr (talk • contribs) 15:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OrphanBot doesn't always notify the user as soon as the image is tagged as "no source" or "no copyright". Consequently, there could be as little as five days between when the user is notified and when the image is deleted, or even less if the bot is offline for some reason. --Carnildo 18:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please turn off this vandal bot. It is removing images with legitimite copyright tags. In my case, Public Domain images from the State of California Government, PD-CAGov

{{PD-CAGov}})

Not the bot's fault that somebody merged {{PD-CAGov}} with {{no license}}. --Carnildo 18:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK--please disable OrphanBot for now then. Dananderson 18:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MarkSweep did it. I'll fix the template and revert all the PD-CAGov removals. —Guanaco 19:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's basically OrphanBot's 500 most recent edits. --Carnildo 19:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I stoppped by with the same issue. It looks like you guys have it fixed. If not let me know how I can help. Thanks, -Will Beback 20:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll rollback all those edits. The bot will re-orphan all the necessary pages the next time it runs. —Guanaco 22:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Carnildo. I was reading everything on your talkpage, and I've got as far as where you claim it's not the bot's fault that someone changed a template. I know it's not my business, but you could always be polite. You could say something like "Yes, I'm terribly sorry about that! It looks like someone changed the template, and the bot wasn't updated...". This is just one example of your lack of politeness that has been made apparent to me throughout your talkpage. Sorry if I'm talking out of turn, but I am a fan of being pleasant.--Keycard ^(talk) 14:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree... All the bot's actions/messages are far to agressive and in some cases plain rude. Fosnez 15:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Got an idea for better wording of the messages? The talkpage message needs to be brief so it'll be read, it needs to clearly indicate that the only place where the user can go to get a response is Wikipedia:Image legality questions (I'm not going to watchlist the 13,000 user talkpages that OrphanBot's edited, and I don't think the Wikipedia servers would handle it too well either), and it needs to indicate where the user can go to read about the applicable image use policies. If it's the edit summaries you're concerned about, I'm open to suggestions for better ones. --Carnildo 03:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, what do you think about moving the orphanbot help page to a subpage of Wikipedia:Untagged images? I think it should be in the Wikipedia namespace, or possibly even the Help namespace. I don't have any great ideas about where it should go honestly, but I don't think comments like [3] are at all helpful. With the page technically being in your talk space comments directed at you, like this, aren't technically wrong. It also might get more visibility if it were elsewhere. Just wanted to get your thoughts. - cohesion^t 07:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving it out of my userspace is certainly a good idea, but I don't have any idea on where to move it to. If the "untagged images" guys want to help out on this, then moving it to a subpage of Wikipedia:Untagged images would work. --Carnildo 07:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for input on Wikipedia talk:Untagged images so I'll let a discussion happen, then see where that leads. - cohesion^t 10:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you calling it a blatant copyvio, this is an image taken by a passenger released to multiple media outlets and cannot be considered property of any one media outlet, I just screen captured it from the tv station I had open. I would have to disagree on the "competing" with them as they will only show the article on the day of the event and Wikipedia is not in any way competing, we are simply proving an encyclopedic account of the event -- Tawker 00:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia may not be intended as a news outlet, but our coverage of major current events is usually better than that of most news sources. As a result, we compete with news outlets for viewership. One of the basic rules of "fair use" is that you can't take someone's copyrighted work and use it in such a way that provides direct competition with their use, so we can't claim "fair use" on current event images from news media. --Carnildo 03:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And yet the image only appeared after the TV station had 24 hours of non competition from Wikipedia and the image can hardly be considered copyright of the media station. It was also on multiple unaffiliated networks so property of the image does not rest with any one station. As the image will end up on Wikipedia one way or another, I see no reason to play a "delay longer" game. Consensus on the IRC channels tends to agree with me -- Tawker 04:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, in this case it appears that copyright rests with the unknown person who made the image, so we're competing with their ability to sell the image to news outlets, by reducing its value to those news outlets. And the fact that we spent 24 hours not violating copyright doesn't matter one bit. --Carnildo 05:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a phone call to the newsroom in question, obviously the image enhances the story so I'll try and get source info. I think after a week though it will count as fair use as it won't be used in the mainstream media after today. -- Tawker 05:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, see Beonon's comments about the issue, I'm still not sure, I think the image greatly enhances the article and I'm trying to get its status figured out. -- Tawker 05:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever made the image, they've already sold it to the news station(s), they're not going to make any more money from it. Copyright law sucks, but we can hardly get a free replacement, can we? IANAL but the "fair use" claim seems justified - we've identified that yes, it's from a TV station, and we're not competing with them... Alphax ^τεχ 06:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please place the Georgia Military College photos back up. They belong to Georgia Military College and are taken from the school website. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.219.142.214 (talk • contribs) 05:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC) Alphax ^τεχ 06:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your bot is removing BillEverett.gif from the Bill Everett page. As far as I can tell, it's a valid image - I've included the copyright, and it's a single panel from a comic book. Please review. Carlo 14:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it to support after your super fast response to my concern. I've made a slightly change to WP:CSD requesting images with fair use rationals go to WP:IFD instead seeing as how you speedy tagged for a second opinion, I think it might belong better there. Great job with the bot by the way, I forgot to mention it earlier -- Tawker 23:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Carnildo 23:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck by the way, if it doesn't turn out, wait a few months before trying again as I think a month's wait will probally just being in "too soon" oppose votes. -- Tawker 01:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a new approvals method proposed at WT:BOTS. You have been selected (for your activity at WP:BOTS and understanding of the bot procedure) and placed on the approvals group. You can remove yourself from the list if you wish.--Commander Keane 02:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I had the original copyright on the photo. It was part of an image taken from a magazine article, from the Sunday Times and thus I think it does violate the copyright, although I did not know it at the time. As a result, the image should be deleted.

Carnildo, thank you so much for OphanBot! I love it. One of the most important things it does, I think, is remove the NL/NS images from articles, which notifies everyone interested in the article that the images are in danger. Recently, though, it's frequently not reaching images until the 6th or 7th day (or later). I personally don't have the heart to remove an image from an article and delete it on the same day, and I feel bad even doing the removal myself on the 8th day and deletion on the 10th. What I want to know is, is the delay by design, or is the bot just backlogged? In either case is there anything we can do about it? ×Meegs 19:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, the bot will remove the image on the fifth or sixth day -- I get too many complaints if I remove the images immediately. Recently, however, the bot's been crashing late on the daily run (difficulties determining the uploader if the image was uploaded on Commons but tagged here on en:, or if the image was uploaded with a summary containing the word "reverted"), and hasn't been able to get to the images later in the alphabet. It should be back to normal tomorrow or the day after. --Carnildo 19:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you can tell, I'd prefer day 1, but I understand the PR problem. Tell me what you think of my post at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#OrphanBot. Thanks. ×Meegs 12:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: WP:AN/I <font color="green">A</font>dmrb♉ltz <small>(T | C | k)</small> 03:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it. OrphanBot does tend to attract violently negative reactions from time to time. --Carnildo 03:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If someone sends me e-mail permission is there any tag that fits? It's just a guy at a university who took it privately so I don't know what more to expect beyond the "no problem" I've posted on the image talk page. Marskell 08:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Permission to use on Wikipedia? No. The permission need to be to use the image under a free license; if the photographer wants the image to be widely used, then the Creative Commons ShareAlike Attribution license is the best, if the photographer wants to minimize the usage, the GFDL is the best (the GFDL requires that the full text of the license to accompany any re-use of the image, while the CC-BY-SA license only requires that the photographer be credited). --Carnildo 09:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So "can I use this on Wikipedia?", "yes, you can" is not actually permission unless the person specifies one of the two options you describe? If that's the case you might as well delete the pic and I'll go hunting for something from NASA or some such thing. Marskell 09:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there are a bunch of options (see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Free licenses), but those two are the most common. --Carnildo 09:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Orphanbot owner, I was wondering if it would be possible to also notify the talk page of whichever article the picture is on because your bot deleting a picture that someone else added. Although it was true that the guy forgot to give the source, The picture itself was a promotional phote and thus fair use. I had to replace the picture with one that wasn't as good.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no significant benefit to it. Currently, OrphanBot notifies the uploader of the image -- the person most likely to care about and be able to fix problems -- as soon as it encounters a "no source"- or "no license"-tagged image. This gives them at least five days to fix the problem. It removes the image from any articles using it a day or two before it is eligable for deletion, which gives the next-most-likely group -- people with the article on their watchlists -- a chance at fixing the problem. Placing a note on an article talk page would frequently just fill up talk pages without changing anything. --Carnildo 21:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, why not also add a simple comment on an article's talk page? I don't think anyone would mind. If anything, it would help some of the easy-to-fix things get fixed faster and not hinder the bot's overall mission. I've seen a few good images removed only because (and I think this is a healthy assumptions) a lot of casual Wikipedians don't visit every day, or even every five days. It seems unreasonable to expect everyone to be that way. That kind of demand for constant attendence will turn off a lot of potentially good Wikipedians who might not mean any harm and are mostly newbies. However, at the same time I think a 5-day warning is fine if you were to also add notification to the talk page. Bobak 04:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you realize the scale OrphanBot works on. In an average day's work, OrphanBot will process roughly 2200 images, removing 350 of them from articles, and will give 320 notices to users. This takes between eight and 16 hours, depending on how responsive Wikipedia is. Because of the response time of Wikipedia and the ten-second delay between edits imposed by bot policy, it takes OrphanBot between 20 and 30 seconds to edit a page, so adding talkpage notifications would take at least two and a half hours a day.

Because of the logging OrphanBot does, I've only got one computer with enough disk space to run OrphanBot. It also happens to be my main gaming computer. I don't know about you, but I want my computer to be available when I come home from work. --Carnildo 05:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, if you're going to take the time to design something as useful as OrphanBot (especially with potential usefulness), you really ought to see that it becomes all that it can be (or at least come up with a better excuse than being a gamer, I'm a pretty hardcore (console) gamer, and I'd feel odd using that as an excuse for anything). Maybe some of your Bot's supporters can help finangle you a host so you can get your (let's call it) work in. ;-) Bobak 16:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We're all volunteers here, and there are limits to what we have time to do, or are prepared to do. The JPS 16:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, but I don't think we should err on the side of torching a large number of useful pictures that only needed a minor tweak in fair use, etc. Please read my original comments that state why, because we are volunteers, the current work of OrphanBot is unnecessarily punitive and can harm the Wikipedia experience. Bobak 17:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bobak, isn't the removal of the image from the article sufficient to notify the article's editors? The bot leaves an good description in the edit summary. As Carnildo said in his first reply, the edit to the article should reach everyone with it on their watchlist just as an edit to the talk page would. Why tax the database, slow the bot, and clutter the talk pages? ×Meegs 17:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Bobak: I find your comment troubling, Carnildo is spending time, money and bandwidth and you almost seem if he should be doing more. It's free, you get what you pay for. Mike _{(T C)} 20:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Onthost, this is nothing personal to Carnildo, it's great he has time to do things like this for free. However, I find nothing troubling about taking a look at a bot, from seeing is work all over the place, and coming to the conclusion (in my view) that the value of a bot as being not worth it's potential detriment. In fact, that line of reasoning implies I can't separate the two: the man from the machine, so to speak (heh). Regretably there are two problems that I don't see this getting past: (1) Wikipedians assume everyone uses this site as much as "they" do (and by they I mean those that use the site as frequently as "they" do); (2) some people obsess with copyright violations more than I do, and I do for a living. I'm just accepting these as an current inherent problem in Wikipedia (not like it's the only one), and moving on. Bobak 20:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As an alternative, could the bot comment out pictures from articles as the FIRST step, at the same time the uploader is notified? That way, everyone looking at, watching or working on an article would be aware of the potential of the picture being deleted and have time to try and fix the problems. Every day or so, I find a picture has been deleted from an article that I work on. Once it is gone, I cannot try to track down a source or communicate (by e-mail) with an uploader. This is very frustrating. -- Samuel Wantman 21:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Originally, that's what OrphanBot did. I got a lot of complaints. --Carnildo 22:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kurushima-Kaikyo Bridge small.jpg

How about appending any tag with the image so that it has an asterisk that is linked to a page that explains that the picture is tagged for deletion and there is a week to track down the source. I've made an example. That, with the edit comment from orphanbot, it would warn everyone watching, editing or looking at the page without disrupting it. This will lowere the complaints at least a little, as I will stop complaining. -- Samuel Wantman 10:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's another frequent suggestion. For a more extensive discussion, see Template talk:No license#Hands from the rest of the community, but the basic problem is that OrphanBot has only a vague idea of what constitutes the "end" of an image tag, and no understanding of the internal structure. Further, image syntax is so complicated that attempting to add something like a link or a template to the caption will occasionally break things. OrphanBot works reasonably well right now; a major change to how it handles images would require a week or more of checking every edit it makes to find situations I didn't think of. --Carnildo 18:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about leaving the picture as is, and putting a small box on the top or bottom of the page that says "An image on this page may be deleted soon." -- Samuel Wantman 09:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted by OrphanBot, which you appear to be in charge of. If not you, who? Adam 07:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If by "deleted" you mean "removed from an article", then yes, OrphanBot did so, and did so in line with policy. If by "deleted" you mean "removed permanently from the server", then the image has not been deleted at all. --Carnildo 07:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In line with what policy? The photo is an original photo taken by me, released by me into the public domain, and tagged by me accordingly. Adam 07:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image that OrphanBot removed was tagged as {{no source}}, was in the category Category:Images with unknown source, and is eligable for deletion under speedy deletion criteria I4. OrphanBot removed the image from the article to make things easier for an admin who deletes it, and to give anyone watching the article warning of the impending deletion, so they have a chance to do something to prevent it.

If you've got a complaint about the contents of the image description page, take it up with Melbob, who uploaded it. If you've got a complaint about the image being tagged as {{no source}}, take it up with Urshyam, who tagged it. If you've got a problem with the speedy deletion policy, take it up with Jimbo Wales, who decreed that policy. If you're complaining about how the bot goes about assisting with CSD I4, you're in the right place, but I'm not going to make any changes without a very good reason. --Carnildo 07:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I won't do any of those things, I will reupload the original photo. I don't much like your attitude by the way. Adam 07:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to your request on this FAC, and I'll try to upload that free license goat pic later today. However, the only section on images in "What is a featured article" states "It has images where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status; however, including images is not a prerequisite for a featured article." I believe the images are appropriate (though, as I said, I can remove the STUCO one if you think it's pointless), captions are all succinct as possible (and that wasn't a complaint of yours), and all the images have correct copyright status. Simply having fair use images in an article is not a violation of WP:WIAFA. In any case, I hope I can find a way to fix this to sway you towards a support vote! Staxringold 12:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I replied again. While I understand that fair use images should be used where they contribute significantly, the three remaining images all do. The two I'm trying to get free-released I explain on the FAC reply, and the STUCO president image is the only way to really display any facet of student government (which is an entire subsection of the article), making it a useful addition IMO. Staxringold 19:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied again, thanks for keeping with this issue! Staxringold 20:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed some solutions I hope are suitable to sway your vote. Staxringold 20:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the two remaining fair use images pending re-release of them under a free license, replacement with a free license image, or permanent removal with no free alternative. I hope you consider this action sufficient to at least withdraw your objection, if not support the article instead. If you have any other objections to the article please continue to voice them as clearly as you have as they make them wonderfully easier to fix. Thanks again! Staxringold 21:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for crossing out the photos you have issues with, and for the free vector program (though it looks pretty complex, I'll wait to here back on the map first). Can I ask what else I can do to get you to withdraw your opposition/support this baby? Staxringold 12:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Hello? I don't want to be pushy, but FAs go by suprisingly fast. I think I've dealt with all your issues, so could you either change/withdraw your vote, or tell me what still needs fixing (so your vote fits the required parameter of being fixable). Thanks! Staxringold 11:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Another solution has been proposed. Staxringold 13:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you have a moment... am I incorrect in questioning the fair use of this image? The three potential problems I see: 1) Its resolution may be too high; 2) The accompanying text, while mentioning his contract with Capitol, does not mention this album specifically; and, 3) There is no explanation for choosing "Album Cover" as a rationale for its use (the uploader believes simply choosing the option is sufficient). Thanks for your time. RadioKirk talk to me 17:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the text to mention the album ultra-specifically can be easily done. What I'm curious about here is the notion that low-res album covers are intrinsically not Fair Use. If this is true, this needs to be made clear on the upload page, and on the countless Wikipedia pages out there currently displaying album covers. The image I uploaded is far from being hi-resolution: if printed, it would be useless for any purpose. If album covers are just flat-out not allowed on Wikipedia anymore, that's fine, and would appreciate some clarification. But if it is a fact, it is not a well-publicized one. wikipediatrix 18:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Galleries are just another way to represent pictures. They should not be seen differently than a thumbnail. Granted it has to apply to the context, but clearly the images in Ozma Wars correspond ot the text. Which is what fair use policy necessitates. In the future it woudl be better ot explain this to people before you arbitrarily remove entire sections from articles, to give vested interest teh opportunity to show that the images correspodn to the text. Perhaps just by telling them to add comments to the images showing their context. --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 20:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're disussing this here, perhaps Carnildo would like to comment himself. jacoplane 22:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You recently voted oppose for this article's request to become a featured list. The main or sole reason behind your choice to oppose was that there were many red links on the article. This was in the process of being attended to by Metropolitan well before I nominated this article for FL status, so I apologize that the article was not ready to become an FL as of then. Now, though, all but a few red links have been replaced by blue links.

For the time being, your oppose vote has been stricken out because your reason for opposing has been attended to. If you still believe this article should not become a featured list, please de-strike your comment and state a new reason. If you think that because of the lack of red links, it now deserves a support vote, kindly note that below your original vote and write "support". Thank you for your vote on that page. → J@red ^talk+ _ubx  02:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When the license states PD-self, shouldn't the source be clear?--Arnero 06:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and normally, OrphanBot correctly spots a {{PD-self}} and {{no source}} double-tagging. What happened with those images is that there was a {{no source}} tag on the English Wikipedia image description page, and a {{PD-self}} tag on the Commons page, while the image itself was on Commons. OrphanBot doesn't deal with Commons, so it only saw the {{no source}} tag. --Carnildo 08:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your bot keeps notifing me that images I uploaded were tagged as missing sources and will be deleted, when I myself am the one who tagged them. (Obviously something only a bot would notify me of, human editors would notice that if I tagged the image, I'll be aware of it) It's not really bad, but kinda annoying so maybe you'll find a way to stop the bot from warning people who tagged the images themselves. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 11:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore the above image, which is duly sourced, at the page Tarnovo Ice Piedmont from which it was removed today by OrphanBot. Apcbg 16:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your bot's doing wonderful work. Without it, several images that I'd uploaded would've been deleted and I would've never known why. Because of OrphanBot, I understand how to tag images properly...although I'm sure I'm still not doing it one hundred per cent correctly. No matter. Keep up the good work. :) —Wlmaltby3 10:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I spotted a problem: OrphanBot is removing this: Image:Oresme.jpg from the article "Nicolas Oresme". But this picture is correctly tagged as {{PD-Art}}...
The image was originally in the wiki-EN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Oresme.jpg) and now it is in the Commons (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Oresme.jpg). --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 15:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When OrphanBot removed the image, there was a copy on the English Wikipedia that was masking the copy on Commons. Someone had tagged the local copy as {{no license}}, and OrphanBot was seeing that tag and removing the image as not having a copyright tag.

When OrphanBot sees an image tagged as {{no license}}, it ignores any other license tags the image has. This is because it's very common for someone who finds an image with a clearly-incorrect license tag to simply add a {{no license}} tag, and not remove the existing tag. --Carnildo 19:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:N9jig-il-shield (edit|talk|links|history|watch) Delete. We don't need a fair-use template for drawings of highway markers from a specific site, and I don't think the images in question are fair-use: either they are ineligible for copyright, or a Wikipedian can make free-license replacements. Carnildo 21:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: User:SPUI has created a lot of our highway marker images. I'll ask what is up with these. Jkelly 04:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC) I think they'd be ineligible for copyright. I'd make SVG replacements, but I don't have the specs. I need the specs for sign M1-I100 from the IDOT version of Standard Highway Signs. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 04:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC) ...which I either need to find or contact IDOT about. A simple google search is all I've really had time to do lately, but it might be on their website. In the meantime, since this is all we've got, keep because nothing better exists. —Rob (talk) 12:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: NO Deletion Hey, Rich Carlson (N9jig-il-shield) is a police officer in a suburban Chicago village. He has the contacts with the Illinois Department of Trasnportation. He has been researching the Illinois highway numbering system for several years. He just recently spoke to the IDOT Traffic Engineers Conference in Champaign regarding his historical work on Illinois state routes and signage. I helped him with his web page (research) a couple years ago - since I use to live in west central Illinois. Have issues or questions, ask Rich!

As for me -- No donations to Wiki for letting this "Bot" censor loose -Greg Beat 04:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment — Here is the email citing where I requested permission: At 3:18 PM -0600 12/27/04, LpAngelRob wrote: Rich, As I've found that your site has been by far the most comprehensive site on Illinois Highways anywhere ... I was wondering if it would be okay with you to use (with your permission) the Illinois Route sign graphics on your website. I would link back to your site, of course. The end result would be a part of the Wikipedia, where I gradually import information regarding current Illinois State Routes (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Illinois_state_highways). All of the information on the site has come from mostly my own memory and through verification in Mapquest. Would I have your permission to use the sign graphics to help complement the existing articles? Feel free to add your own, as well. Thanks, -Robert

Response from Rich Carlson dated 12/27/04 3:18 PM CST Sure, and thanks for asking first! Feel free to use the sign images for the Wikpedia site. Please download the images you need to your server, as to limit the bandwidth strain on my server. Enjoy! —Rob (talk) 15:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Carnildo, I have just noticed that Orphanbot has deleted the image File:Korsunpanther.jpg. I was not notified, and so was not able to update the copyright information (as I am attempting to do with many of my images uploaded under the Template:PD-Germanytag. I was under the impression it was SOP to notify the uploader of the fact that the image may be deleted so that they may update licence info if this is available. Either way, it's quite rude, and in future could you please notify me before your bot deletes any images which i have uploaded. --ansbachdragoner 23:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• OrphanBot does not and can not delete images. The image was deleted by JesseW.
• It is recommended but not required to notify the uploader. OrphanBot will only notify someone once a day, to prevent them from being flooded with notices -- before I implemented this, some people were getting 50 or more notices. Looking at OrphanBot's log, you've got at least five unsourced images you haven't been notified of: Image:P15 steiner.jpg, Image:Tiger_II_-_316PzKp(fkl).jpg, Image:Kurtmeyer.jpg, Image:Brandenburgers_-_Ost.jpg, Image:Brandenburgers_-_Holland.jpg.
• OrphanBot keeps a copy of every image it's dealt with. If you want, I can re-upload the image for you to tag.

--Carnildo 07:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's a pretty interesting piece of information that I haven't seen before. You might want to make it much more prominent that deleted images can be restored if Orphan bot saw them. That might make people very appreciative of the bot. Also, did you see my last comment here? Perhaps if this process was percieved as being more friendly, you'd have many less comments on your talk page. -- Samuel Wantman 08:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for noticing me about the copyright licensing. Somebody deleted the licensing tag from the page. I corrected it already. Kirkland1 05:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, OrphanBot has incorrecty tagged Image:Pythagorean proof.png as having no copyright information. It looks like the author does not want to use one of the standard templates for reasons that are his own (in any case, the image is probably too trivial and looks too much like other similar images to be covered by copyright). I understand that this makes OrphanBot's task more difficult, but my question is: is OrphanBot likely to come back and retag this image as having no copyright information, or will it leave it alone after one try ? Cheers, Schutz 13:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hum... I see that someone else did the tagging, and OrphanBot just did the followup by removing the image from the pages that link to it. So its behaviour was correct, it just acted on incorrect data. Sorry about the noise. Schutz 13:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, have a look at what your bot did to Peter Hore. I don't have a problem with the bot deleting the image, but why doesn't it delete the fairuse tag as well? Otherwise the tag is 'orphaned' (to coin a term). - Richardcavell 13:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image license tags shouldn't appear in articles. They should only be applied to image description pages. Since the tag shouldn't have been there in the first place, I see nothing wrong with OrphanBot not removing it. --Carnildo 03:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphanbot has started a removal process on NSF Review 1 , which was tied to NSF review II,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nsf_review_2_stevenson.jpg . Both were under Govt created Objects- no copyright. here is the code I think you need for this one but am unsure if it can be retied to the 2nd half, although it may be in Govt doc. - {{subst:Template:This work is in the public domain because it is a work of the United States federal Government. This applies worldwide. See Copyright.|Image:Nsf review 1 stevenson.jpg}} 24.121.45.195 19:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image "Nelson.jpg" was an image of myself uploaded for the sake of ease because of the code that would create the frame around images that you see in articles. It was deleted and has been replaced by an image of a city in New Zealand or some place. I would appreciate if this were rectified. If I took the picture it wouldn't need a copyright, correct?

--Nelson 02:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that your bot is broken; it places warnings for users in the wrong places (such as User talk:User:Omizzle77 instead of User talk:Omizzle77). I have blocked it for one hour, hope you can fix it. Sorry for any inconvenience. - Mike Rosoft 22:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've found and fixed the bug, and there's a list of the pages the bot accidentally created at User:Carnildo/Bot mistake. --Carnildo 22:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even if image redirects are bad form in general, they are strictly necessary to achieve a desired functionality. It has become common practice on articles containing chemical reactions to link chemical formulae to the articles on those compounds. Such as,

SO₂ + ½ O₂ → SO₃

This works for simple compounds, but for compounds that are better represented by structural formulae, which need images, the same functionality can only be achieved using image redirects. See section 3 under Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry, "A Scheme for Schemes", and the example there. To promote image reuse, for this application the relevant images need to be visually compatible, and unlikely to collide with other image names. Hence, a common prefix to set apart this grouping of images. Shimmin 22:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a follow-on to the above (and as the example I mentioned above has been archived), there are three ways to do navigational images listed on meta:Help:Navigational image. #1 is image redirects, #2 doesn't work on wikipedia, and #3 is an evil CSS-based hack that doesn't work in all browsers. Until now, when forced to use image redirects, I've put the licensing info on the talk page, which has worked fine when dealing with human editors, but of course isn't where OrphanBot looks for it. If OrphanBot now means there is no way to do navigational images on WP, I feel that's a problem. Shimmin 11:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi... I know you can't personally do anything about it right now, but there is a large backlog of orphaned 'fair use' images which need to be deleted. I've been busy with other projects, so I can't really babysit it right now... so I was wondering if you could go nag people to take care of these. There is also a backlog of orphan tagged non-orphans that any one could take care of... --Gmaxwell 20:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Would it not be better to take responsibility for this bot (if it is indeed your brainchild) and call it, say, "Carnildobot"? --Historian 08:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe in naming bots after what they do, not after who owns them. Originally, OrphanBot was designed for one task: orphaning no-source and no-license images so admins could delete them easily. Notifying users and other related tasks have been added since then. --Carnildo 18:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Well, one of the things that this bot apparently does, judging from the entries above, is cause widespread irritation, so "Irritatingbot" might be a better name. You certainly seem to have an uphill struggle to win over/educate those wikipedians whose image contributions made in good faith have been affected by it! --Historian 00:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed when this bot removed an image from the Reel Big Fish infobox, it also removed the "|" at the end of the line of the infobox code, causing the next line of the infobox to display in non wiki code, just wondering if this is something you can rectify to prevent it doing this to a whole lot of infoboxes. Thanks! Philc _T+C 13:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you look at [4], you'll see that there never was a "|" to begin with. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, though. --Carnildo 06:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've spotted what looks like an unfortunate interaction between Roomba and OrphanBot: see the edit history of Image:Fate of Norns.jpg, which should be a perfectly standard fair use album cover. The image was first uploaded with a {{Don't know}} tag, orphaned by OrphanBot, then retagged as {{albumcover}} but then, being still orphaned, tagged as {{or-fu}} by Roomba. I was about to delete it per CSD I5 when I noticed something funny was going on. If I'd been slightly less attentive (and with a backlog of about 1600 week-old orphan fair use images, one can't expect too much attention from admins) the image would've been deleted (again).

I'm not sure what the best way to avoid such situations would be, but I though I'd bring this to your attention. I'd tentatively suggest that Roomba should not tag images as or-fu if they've been previously orphaned by OrphanBot and now have a valid tag. Of course, it'd also be nice if OrphanBot could watch the images it has orphaned and restore them if a valid tag was provided.

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

Your bot red flagged some images that I forgot to tag, how do I put a tag on it after I've uploaded them? The two news article scans are copyrighted to Bay Currents Newspaper but are free to use. Please help me. EZZIE 23:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go to Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and find the appropriate one for the image. To bring up the image description page, click on the image or a link to the image. Click "Edit this page", and replace the existing tag with the new tag. --Carnildo 06:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hey, there was a discussion about moving the questions page to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions from Wikipedia:Image legality questions. Anyway, the page is moved and all the templates are changed, can you change the bot's message whenever you get a chance? The old page is a redirect of course so it's not urgent :) Thanks. - cohesion^t 06:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi, a while ago I uploaded this picture of George Stroumboulopoulos, did it wrong and OrphanBot deleted it(rightfully). Thing is, I still don't really get how you figure out what the copyright status of a picture is. It's just so confusing with that huge long list of copyrights. Does that make sense? Can you help? witchbaby 21:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you can point me to a list of such images to work from. Category:Fair use images contains upwards of 150,000 images, and most of them aren't a problem. It would take the bot over two weeks to simply go through the category and check each image individually, and I don't have enough free disk space on my computer to host a full mirror of the English Wikipedia.

The bot can turn inlined images on talk pages into image links, and remove images from user pages and category descriptions. It can't remove images from templates, because doing so will often break template formatting.

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

That idea sounds vaguely familiar. In any case, I suspect that it may turn into something that needs a top-down push, but we'll see. Jkelly 02:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have a complaint! ... It didn't remove enough. ;) on Image:KanishkaI.jpg it was also linked from template Template:Greco-Buddhist_art. I removed it by hand, but it left me wondering if it was a feature or a bug that it wasn't removed by the bot. --Gmaxwell 02:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bot doesn't touch templates because they're too easy to mess up. Instead, it logs a note on its talk page so I can remove the image by hand. --Carnildo 03:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edit to J2000, the epoch is with respect to a given Julian date. Is this not thus related to the Julian calendar? Not an expert (just play one at work), so thought I'd ask before reverting. Thanks! MFago 02:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Why did you red-flag my image? I took the picture and uploaded it myself and changed the tag so that it readL May Use for NON-COMMERCIAL USE--I don't see why that calls for a speedy deletion. Ever since your bot red-flagged my first image, all my pages and images are getting looked at. This is pretty discouraging. EZZIE 06:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you RED-FLAGGED every single one of my original photographs! Wikipedia is really the wrong thing for me I'm thinking. I came here to share information and images with the world and this is how I'm treated. EZZIE 07:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia. This means that anyone can re-use the content for whatever they want, so long as they follow the terms of the GFDL. Permitting commercial use is part of this: among other things, it allows answers.com to integrate Wikipedia content with their knowlegebase, and it allows the German Wikipedia to raise funds by selling CDs with the encyclopedia on them.

And it's not just you that's getting a close look. I'm hoping that every one of the 450,000 or so images will be checked out in the near future: many of them shouldn't have been uploaded in the first place. --Carnildo 07:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]