It's okay for them to only have the "coat of arms" tag because I haven't gotten around to objecting yet. There's a backlog of about four thousand images that use only the "coat of arms" tag, and since I get about one complaint for every ten images, I'm in no particular hurry. --Carnildo 17:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I should let you know that some very stubborn people on the page have put the pictures back in that Orphanbot removed, even after I rved to its edit. So they will have to be removed again - not sure if you need to do that manually or something the second time. Cheers, John Smith's 18:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bot's quite capable of running a slow-motion edit war. I've yet to find someone who can out-stubborn it. --Carnildo 19:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{subst:http://mrs-dibny.livejournal.com%7CImage:Sue Dibny.jpg}} T-man, the wise 02:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC) The image is from a panel of Identity Crisis, a limited series comic book. Why did I got the bot message? what did I do wrong? I thought I choosed the right lisence--T-man, the wise 02:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I keep trying to add a GFDL self made tag to Image:Male replace.PNG but I can’t seem to do it. Could you please do this for me. Thanks.

One other thing: I'm trying to make new male/female (or boy/girl) userboxes. I can't seem to get them to display properly on the userbox page. Do you know what needs to be done?

Userboxes: Template:User girl Template:User boy Miller 13:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image Image:FF5_trans_compare.png got tagged with "no source" by your bot. However, it is a video game screenshot and thus the source is obvious. I have added source information since then, but is there no way for it to check that there doesn't have to be a source, depending on its placement? Actually, now that I'm writing this, I realize that this is likely impossible. In any case, it isn't necessary to add "no source" to such images. Just something that I wanted to let you know in case it helps you any. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 16:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the source for video game screenshots is not obvious, except in certain rare cases such as shots of the title screen. Just from looking at that one, I wouldn't be able to tell more than that it was from a mid-90s computer game -- or maybe a GameBoy Color game. --Carnildo 03:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Micoolio101 (the leader) has left Wikipedia. M. Burmy has been blocked by an admin.

I'll check and see if any more popup, OK? Tom Danson 19:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that OrphanBot has a statement that says

Administrators: if this bot is malfunctioning or causing harm, please block it.

I wanted to put this out there, but have you considered adding a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Emergency-bot-shutoff ?

If OrphanBot's statement is the same as the emergency bot shutoff button, have you considered adding your bot to the list of bots with emergency shutoff? Guroadrunner 06:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you may want to look at Wikipedia_talk:Bots because there are some issues with the implementation of OrphanBot. Guroadrunner 06:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your bot removed Image:LisaFVogue.jpg from three pages based on their being dispute. I have tried to add reasoning for the use on the image page, have entered into discussion showing that the cover is discussed and pertinate to each of the articles and there has never been an adminstrative decision made on this image. Why then has it been removed before the issue is resolved? I believe that the image meets the fairuse standard for these articles. To remove this lessens these articles, in my opinion. Thanks. Doc ♬ talk 10:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same here, for Alessandra Mussolini, an excellent Fair Use rationale was provided at Image:Alessandra_Mussolini_Playboy_IT_Cover.jpg, that the bot ignored. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 12:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In both cases, the image is still listed as fair-use-disputed. --Yamla 13:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite so. Unlike WP:PROD where you are allowed to just remove the tag, or WP:AFD, where there is a real time limit, and someone judges consensus, there doesn't seem to be any formal way of resolving this kind of dispute. The bot shouldn't just remove disputed images after a time, that way it is making a decision that the disputer is always right. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My concern as well. There has been no resolution, several persons that I've heard from agree with it being fairuse, one person in particular still does not agree. I have no problem with accepting some sort of consensus, once that has been reached, but in this case it hasn't. Doc ♬ talk 21:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When removing images from pages because their fair-use status is disputed, could you also add the {{orfud}} tag to the image page? That would help a great deal, I think. If you respond to this, please do so on my talk page or leave a short note on my talk page indicating that you have responded here. Thanks. --Yamla 13:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have FairuseBot do that starting the next time it runs. It used to be that Gmaxwell's Roomba would handle the tagging, so FairuseBot didn't need to. --Carnildo 03:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted on my talk page, I'm not sure what the copyright is on this image. Before you delete the image, would you have the time to help me figure it out? Chris53516 13:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if we can't figure out what the copyright is, it's no big deal. I can replicate the idea on my own. It would simply save time to do it this way. Chris53516 13:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I requested some help, do you mind? Before you go about deleting the graphic? I don't take well to being ignored. Chris53516 13:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your bot is not working properly. The image I uploaded is NOT even 7 days old yet. I uploaded it Monday, and your bot removed the graphics already! What's the deal? And you won't help out, either! Give me a break! You should take responsibility for your edits! Chris53516 14:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from the copyright template:

The individual who uploaded this work found it on an unconfirmed website. An experienced editor should help the uploader determine the status of this work, and help the uploader understand the process for picking the correct license in the future.

I'm asking for your help. I can't figure out if a public school is considered part of the government, and thus all that it does is open to the public or not. There is no tag that fits this graphic. It's from a report a school published on their webpage about student achievement. Why don't you help instead of just deleting it? Chris53516 14:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to actually respond to my requests, don't do it here. I'm not going to waste my time waiting for you to respond, so I'm taking you off of my watchlist. If you decide to finally respond, go to my talk page or better yet the page for the image. Chris53516 13:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for taking so long to respond; I've been quite busy this past week. To put it simply, it's not clear that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, so it's best if you make a free-license replacement. There's nothing special about public schools that makes their images freely-usable; it's only the United States Federal Government that makes all its images freely usable.

The purpose of the {{somewebsite}} template is as a placeholder while you ask for help. When the bot notified you about the image, it linked to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, which is the best place to ask for help: there are at least a dozen people watching that page. --Carnildo 04:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this just redirect to {{no license}}, which actually lists the images for speedy deletion? ed g2s • talk 18:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, maybe not, but it should only be used for the case when the license information is in a non-standard form. It should recommend {{no license}} when there is no license info at all, don't you think? ed g2s • talk 18:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The tag is applied almost exclusively by OrphanBot, and the bot can't tell the difference between license information in a non-standard format and no license information at all. If there's a completely empty image description page, OrphanBot uses the {{no info}} tag. --Carnildo 20:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took the photo of Elaine Zanutto with my own camera; I own it ...what did I call it EZpic.jpg or some such...I can use it; I took the picture myself. pic of Dudley is mine, too. also on Roberta Wenocur article: I took her photo too. I can indeed use my own digital photos! What is your problem? MathStatWoman 21:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More on these photos: I own these photos. If you delete them, you make Wikipedia less useful, incomplete, and exercise so much control that people laugh at Wikipedia's usefulness. MathStatWoman 21:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We need to specify the copyright status of the photo that is put on Wikipedia so Wikipedia doesn't get sued for copyright infringement. If you own the photos, you should have specified what kind of copyright status they had when you uploaded the photos (i.e., that you own them and it's okay for Wikipedia to use it). Please read this article: Wikipedia:Copyrights. Furthermore, there is no need to be so angry about it. Assume good faith of other editors. Heck, I got this notice too. At least you know what the copyright status of your picture is--I have no idea. Chris53516 21:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sick of this stupid f’ing bot! There is a fair use rationale on this image: Image:Phycobilisome structure.jpg! Why does the bot say there isn’t?

I have removed the tag now. Please ensure that it isn’t taggaed again. Thank YouMiller 21:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your 'bot examined Image:Israel barrier zigzag.jpg, which is properly tagged with a {{NoRightsReserved}} tag (a valid tag according to Wikipedia:Image copyright tags), incorrectly tagged it as lacking copyright information, and then damaged three articles by altering links to the image. Please undo the damage. Thanks. --John Nagle 06:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OrphanBot did not apply the {{no license}} tag to that image, 69.196.128.174 did, and I believe he was right to do so: permission to use an image on Wikipedia is almost the exact opposite of "no rights reserved".

As for the general case of images tagged with bot "no license" and a copyright tag, if someone doesn't believe that a given copyright tag is correct, it's common practice to add a {{no license}} tag and a statement of why the person doesn't feel the existing tag is correct, which was done in this case. Because of this, OrphanBot considers a tag of {{no license}} to be more authoritative than any copyright tag. --Carnildo 06:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read the following dicussion with an admin about another image from the same source (Fars News Agency). ArmanJan 11:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

El C doesn't have a strong grasp of Wikipedia's fair-use policy. In general, just because the source website acknowleges the existance of fair use doesn't mean that any particular use of their material is fair use. --Carnildo 20:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you add this to orphanbot's recognised tags? I've been through OS map's copyright stuff with a toothpick and then phoned them up and asked them about expiry dates.Geni 14:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Carnildo 20:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put in the URL for you. You have to do a search to find the image. Never been to spain 21:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I found the image, and I fixed up the image description page to include the proper source information. For images from the Library of Congress website, the important thing to include is the call number, which makes it possible to find the image no matter what changes they make to the site. --Carnildo 23:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Carnildo, some friend named "Claire K." doesn't qualify as a source now does it? (→Netscott) 03:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't already, please see these WP:ANI threads concerning this image. Thanks. (→Netscott) 04:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded a new version of Image:Rome dot.png, highlighting Italy. OrphanBot then told me it had no source information. I have reverted to the previous version. But I originally saw that it was GFDL, and that I could modify it. So I did. What's happening? --Thelb⁴ 09:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The {{GFDL}} tag only specifies the copyright status, not the source. In general, GFDL images need sufficient source information that the GFDL status can be verified. In this case, the image was generated either by User:Lupin or his bot, so the correct tag would be {{GFDL-self}}, which provides both source and copyright status. --Carnildo 04:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was actually hoping a Wiki admin would contact me about the Image:Hanseinstein.jpg I uploaded. I wasn't sure how to classify the image. Basically Hans Einstein was a UC Berekely professor that worked on Northern California water issues long before I was born. At some point in the 1950s, somebody took a photo of him working on one of the earliest models (an analog model) of the Bay estuary. The photograph ended up in the hands of the engineers working for the State of California at some point. While the photograph is now the property of the state and includes a caption on the back of who and what is on the photo, we still don't know *who* took the photo ... chances extremely are the photographer has since retired, but the photo was given to somebody else here who most certainly retired with the intent being to show other people that an Einstein worked on water related issues here.  :) I'm hoping that perhaps that since this photo has been passed down from engineer to engineer in a group that works on similar work, that it can be granted an acception even though the photographer is unknown. I've asked around and nobody knows who took the photo. MCalamari 17:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't find out who the photographer is, then the minimum you need to find out is if the image is copyrighted (if it's from the 1950s, there's a good chance that it isn't), and if it is, who owns the copyright to it. --Carnildo 04:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, was your comment on BRFA approving my bot for running? I've misinterpretted comments on the page before, and just wanted to be sure. Regards, alphaChimp ^laudare 20:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Sorry to ask, but is OrphanBot the right tool for this job? Jkelly 21:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that OrphanBot added this template to Image:Taxi1.jpg. I have a question and a bug report.

Q. Why does it use this template when we already have {{subst:nsd}} which is equivalent?

B. "Unless this information is added to this page, the image will be deleted on (4 August 2006). Remove this tag when you provide the information." (4 August) is, in this case, the date the image was tagged. It should be 11 August, i.e. one week later.

Stifle (talk) 22:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen a lot of confusion over Wikipedia's copyright policy. Some of it stems from the complexity of the existing {{no source}} and {{no license}} templates -- what, exactly, is {{no source}} asking for? -- so I'm trying out templates that are short, simple, and to the point. --Carnildo 23:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like it a lot. If it works-out, I'd love to see this text replace {{no source}}'s. ×Meegs 03:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So far so good. I would support this replacement. Stifle (talk) 00:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your bot sent me a message claiming Image:ESA-members-map.png doesn't have licence info. This is the image page before the bots edits. May be a bug, as I'd say that's pretty clear licence info. Cheers, +Hexagon1 ^(t) 02:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I missed the bot is asking for the creator, not the licence. Wouldn't the users be listed at "file history"? +Hexagon1 ^(t) 02:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some smart guy put a double license on the image, Stamps and Sovietpd. I have removed the Stamps license. The image is a PD not a fair use, please tell the orphanbot to stop removing it from the articles abakharev 05:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Carnildo.

I see your bot deleted this image. I understand that this has to do with copyright concerns, and I understand why these are important.

I've reviewed the comments on the Administrators' Noticeboard about fair use of stamps.

In the article A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, our intention was to use the stamp not to provide a mere biographical decoration but to illustrate the fact that the subject of the article has in fact been honored by the Indian government.

The assertion that the government honored him needed verification (this came up on the article's Talk page), and the stamp visually provides it.

And so I believe that what we have here is fair use.

Accordingly, I have restored the image, and added copy to the article to give context, thereby providing further justification for fair use.

I hope this is in line with Wikipedia policy. If not, I'd be grateful if you'd get in touch with me.

Thanks very much.

Respectfully, O Govinda 05:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OrphanBot's done it again. I simply uploaded an optimised version of the image.--Drat (Talk) 07:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't happen again. I've fixed OrphanBot to understand the British spelling of "optimized". :-) --Carnildo 08:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Att: Carnildo:

This is addressed to whomever happens to be removing the "Catman Cohen in silhouette" photo from this Wikipedia listing.

The source of the photo is as follows:

It was provided to Wikipedia by Keevay Music (BMI), along with the requisite source document at the time photo was uploaded originally. The photo is owned by Keevay Music (BMI), copyright 2005. The original photo was shot by cinematographer, Oliver Theess, residing in Los Angeles, acting as an independent contractor hired by Keevay Music.

{{No rights reserved}}

The very same silhouette image appears in Catman Cohen's one and only live performance video (shot by director William Phelps, acting as an independent contractor for Keevay Music) and the very same silhouette image has been provided to countless websites. The silhouette image is the only official photo of Catman Cohen and, having been placed all over the internet, it is de facto in the public domain now.

Hope this clarifies matters for you, thanks.

24.126.193.239 09:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OrphanBot (and FairuseBot) seem to be creating more trouble than they are worth. I have filed a complaint with Wikipedia administrators. Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#OrphanBot_too_restrictive.2C_stirring_up_trouble Guroadrunner 10:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Carnildo. I just wanted to ask what copyright tag I should put on my image (Image:USofRS.JPG). I did put an "Unsure Which Copyright Tag to Choose" one, where it says I'd get help from someone to choose what tag I'd put, but so far, It's been two days, and all the messages I got concerning the image were from OrphanBot, stating that there's a problem with the image, since there's no copyright. Can you help me, if you're not to busy? Cheers! The Runescape Junkie 22:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "unsure" tag is meant as a placeholder while you ask for help. There are too many images tagged with it for us to go around actively looking for them.

If the map were made the traditional way, by stitching together hundreds of shots of the minimap, the correct tag would be {{game-screenshot}}. I'm not sure what software Andrew uses for the official maps, but it's probably not the standard client. The best thing to do would be to tag it as {{fair use in|Runescape}}, then add an explanation as to why it meets the requirements at Wikipedia:Fair use criteria.

Are you sure you've got the boundaries correct, though? When I was making the first map of Falador, Edgeville, the Barbarian Village, and Drayor were considered part of Varrock, and I clearly recall the boundary of the Wilderness running straight east-west. It's been a while since I've played, though. --Carnildo 04:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said:

When I was making the first map of Falador, Edgeville, the Barbarian Village, and Drayor were considered part of Varrock, and I clearly recall the boundary of the Wilderness running straight east-west. It's been a while since I've played, though.

I reply:

Well, I didn't want make boundaries how they should be, I wanted to make them how I'd make them if I was—err...president—of RS. But I'm not sure what you mean about the boundary of the Wilderness running straight east-west, though. I know you're busy, so thanks for giving me a more thorough answer than OrphanBot did. Cheers! The Runescape Junkie 17:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found this image on the IMDb. It was his actor photo.

"No reason to use a non-free image when a free one is available"

There is a reason I put it there, because I thought it was weird to have the same picture twice in one article, and it is perfectly fine to use one image per article from a television program. Those were my reasons. --blm07 05:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Carnildo. I know you're a busy editor, but, I'd like to say that I would be interested in hearing your input on my RFA. As I work mainly with fair use vigilance, I think you may have an insightful opinion on either I would make for an useful Admin. Feel free to express you opinion. I apreciate and respect your work on Wikipedia a lot and this would not change after an "oppose" from you. Thanks in advance, --Abu Badali 04:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - I undeleted it and provided it with a fair use rationale. Please review if you wish. Thanks. - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You missed an important point in the rationale: why it's not possible to find or create a free-license replacement for the image. --Carnildo 06:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought sports logos were exempt, because it being a team logo IS a source. I think OrphanBot needs to be shut off for awhile so it can be fixed. Tom Danson 04:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is sometimes, but not always, the case that the copyright holder for a logo can be determined simply from looking at the logo. OrphanBot can't tell one case from another, so it won't tag logos as unsourced itself, but at the same time, it assumes that any logo that's been tagged by someone else is one where the source isn't self-evident. --Carnildo 07:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me more about this, I'm interested in how OrphanBot discerns things here. --Guroadrunner 05:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bot's got two modes. In tagging mode, it checks image uploads, and based on what it finds, it tags the image as {{untagged}} (image description page with no templates on it), {{no license}} (image description page with only a deprecated license tag), {{no rationale}} (image has a tag requiring a fair-use rationale, but nothing that looks like it could be a rationale), or {{no source}} (empty image description page, or page with a tag requring a source, but nothing that could be considered a source).

In removal mode, it assumes that any {{no source}} or {{no license}} tag is correct. In certain cases, such as an image with both {{no source}} and {{PD-self}}, it lists the image for my review. --Carnildo 03:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<< (image has a tag requiring a fair-use rationale, but nothing that looks like it could be a rationale) >>

Does it parse the image summary for a rationale, or does it only seek a "fair-use rationale" tag? I would have an issue with the latter, as Wikipedia's methods can catch people out. See the extra steps a user might be caught out with here: [2]. What are your thoughts on users possibly being caught out by this, and would you have any ideas for solutions? --Guroadrunner 11:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bot checks the image description page for any of about a dozen keywords that would be part of a fair-use rationale. As a result, it accepts a lot of things that aren't valid rationales, and it hasn't rejected anything I would consider valid in several months. --Carnildo 06:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not talking about all the vasted time users needs to go through to get the image back on page. - Time is money and Wiki ask for donations? My donation is that I uploaded my image that your system took off...

This was left on User:OrphanBot:

hi. i didnt put the picture of ascension on this site. but i saw it there yesterday. i graduated from ascension and attended a reunion there a few months ago. i must have 50 pictures of ascension that i took with my camera. so i will see if i can find one and replace the picture you removed. no big deal. joe 19:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

your bot deleted the official image of Dr. John Ralston Saul the former Vice-Regal Consort of Canada on June 17 2006 at 5:19. It was his official portrait taken while he was in office and was (at the time) available free of charge to anyone wanting a copy either by telephone, mailing, or internet download on gg.ca (we had this same problem with his wife Adrienne Clarkson's image). It is essentially a publicity image of Saul publicizing the office of the vice-regal consort (really a fairly useless position). Its definately fair use, far more so than the book-cover currently on the page (although I think that is a much cooler image). Dowew 05:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

just realized it should be tagged {{Canada-politician-photo}}

There are several Apple II-related images that need deletion. They all lack proper source information, and they are all tagged as orphans, as they have been replaced by me with free-use alternatives from the Wikimedia Commons.

I am not an admin, So I cannot delete the images myself, otherwise I would.

The ones needing deletion are: Image:Apple IIe middle age.jpg, Image:AppleIIc2.jpg, Image:Apple IIc.jpg, Image:Apple IIGS.jpg, Image:The Apple II.jpg.\

If they haven't got an orphan tag on them, then its because someone already removed it because there are on-going edit wars.

— Wackymacs 08:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carnildo is not an admin.... RN 17:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I thought they were, sorry. — Wackymacs 20:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why did u delete the picture of Ajmer Mandur from his wiki site? Your bot deleted him. he is a Canadian politician and the image u deleted is used all acorss the internet as his headshot. Please do not delete any more politicans headshots thanks.Ace ventura 21:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bot removed it because there is no information on where the image is from, and no evidence that the claim of GFDL is correct. --Carnildo 03:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carnildo, this is about Image:Peelmap-a.png. I think we can safely claim PD for this image, as it was included in the League of Nations document C.495.M.336.1937.VI. (Geneva. November 30 1937) In case you need more details, it's an important image of Palestine Mandate 1937 partition plan. I thought that Crown will give us an additional protection but it seems I miscalulated. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I went ahead and made this claim (and restored the images commented out by the Bot). If you think this is inappropriate, please LMK. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, I posted the image [Image:Lennon_plaque.JPG] today, but i forgot put the attributes, and i received the bot message... Can you review that personally... i shotted that foto today. Thanks

I've done it for you. For future reference, you can change the information on the image description page by clicking on the image or any link to it, and selecting "edit this page". --Carnildo 03:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot ZorphDark ZorphDark 16:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OrphanBot is still showing stats from June 1. I'd like to see just how much more that this bot has dished out in the 72 days since then. Hbdragon88 22:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be updating the stats on September 1. --Carnildo 06:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You posted this on User talk:Infocaster. I found the probable source for Image:Biddutina.jpg - [3]. You may want to go over his other images with Google image search too. Kimchi.sg 09:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I ever find the time, I will. --Carnildo 06:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I've uploaded an image of Francesco Brioschi and I've not specified the type of copyright so the OrphanBot notified me this problem. Now I don't exactly know the license on the image, but since it is a photo of a 19th century mathematician I suppose it is not protected by any copyright. I could reasonably insert that "the author has died more than 100 years ago" but I have not found the name of the author. Otherwise, what kind of license could I insert? Thanks! Bye! Eldar Featel 13:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the image was published before 1923, or published anywhere before 1909, then {{PD-US}} works. "Author died more than 100 years ago" is likely the case, but PD-US is easier to determine. --Carnildo 06:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm uploading a few images, but I still don't know exactly how to upload without problems.

Note, most images if not all are from sportslogos.net, so if I could get copyright info there I'd greatly appreciate it. Soxrock 23:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For logos of sports teams, select "logo" from the dropdown menu and put the name of the team it's for and where you got the logo from in the summary box. --Carnildo 07:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, thanks! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 03:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You say that this image has no source. But I have uploaded it from MalayWiki. So, what is the appropriate tag? In IndoWiki, if an image is uploaded from other Wikipedia, it's usually given {{dari|ms}} template for example (:ms is a code for MalayWiki). How about in EnglishWiki? --AFP 04:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the English Wikipedia, you need to track down where the other Wikipedia got it from, and put that on the image description page. --Carnildo 07:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

With regards to uFDEX.jpg that you deleted, your copyright information is not clear and not EVERYBODY understands your tag system.

Anyhow if it's removed it's removed, not important at all.

But say a product like USB has a USB logo. The USB logo is posted on your website, but this does not mean it's given to the public because according to the USB regulations anybody using their logo on their product has to pay for it, no matter if it's so called "free to use" over the internet. So in fact USB can't release their logo to the public and this is the same for uFDEX too. The uFDEX logo is a registered trademark and not a public property, but this should not stop Wiki nor others to display this logo in digital form on a website or article as long as it's uploaded by it's original source.

So what to do?

In my opinion, there should be an option "I/we created the image and gives Wiki permission to display this on their website" and not realease this to the public.

Not possible, since we must allow our content to be used for both commercial and non-commercial purposes. Kimchi.sg 23:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to FairuseBot? It hasn't been running for a while. Kimchi.sg 23:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FairuseBot generates a lot more traffic on my talkpage than OrphanBot, so I only run it when I think I'll have time to deal with it. --Carnildo 07:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Carnildo,

Regarding the image you have removed from G.B. Jones: this image is a single frame taken from the film The Yo-Yo Gang. It had been distributed by the filmmaker (G.B. Jones) and reproduced in various film festival catalogues, fanzines and magazines, and is currently available on-line on at least a couple of websites, the adresses of which can be provided upon request. It is a publicity photo used to promote the film The Yo-Yo Gang. As such, the rights of reproduction of this image can be understood as being much the same as the reproduction of an album cover. If you would be so kind as to reinstate this photo on the G.B. Jones page, that would be much appreciated.

TheEmissary 18:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Pierre cb 23:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They may permit reproduction, but that is not the same thing as an any-purpose license. See User:Carnildo/Image FAQ section 1.2. --Carnildo 07:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello;

I would like to inquire your help with this page I made about Josipa Lisac, the Croatian singer. About a month ago, I've updated her biography and put 2 more pictures, which your program removed. One of them had the copyright information and the other one didn't, due to my own mistake. Since both of these pictures are used from the official site and with a permission, I would appreciate if you would help me tag them correctly, so they could be put on the page once again. Please send me a feedback. Thank you.

Aries 80 01:40, 16 August 2006

Since the images have been deleted, I can't do anything about it. You should ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions: there are a few administrators who watch that page who can undelete the images if needed. --Carnildo 07:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it any way to get me back that picture? It was posted with out my knowledege that it diden't have a tag. The right tag should have been promotion material. Please, tell me that it's not gone forever. Because I cant find it again, ANYWHERE! And program that robot to give a warning one the main article page, and not only if you click the picture (wich a basically never did!).....Thankxxxx FreddyFred 00:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image was deleted for not having source information. Without that, it's not possible to verify the copyright status, and the image can't be used on Wikipedia. The bot did notify the uploader, User:ChuckyDarko, and when it removed the image from the article, you still had three days to fix the problems with it before it was deleted. --Carnildo 07:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding my post above, I have tried to fix the problem. I re-uploaded both pics together with all the necessery information and a tag. They are used with a permission from the official site. I would appreciate if you could check the pictures and let me know if this is all right now or whether some more information is necessary.

Aries 80 16:27, 16 August 2006

An edit left by OrphanBot [4] recently isn't very helpful. Can I suggest that any image uploaded with the {{Don't know}} tag should be marked for human eyes, rather than replying with a bot? In some cases, the answer is going to be, "we can't accept the image, sorry," but that's got to be a case-by-case call, since the user has specifically asked for our help. Telling the user, "you uploaded something using the "Don't know" tag isn't very helpful, since (presumably) they already know that. Perhaps if your bot brought such images to the attention of a larger audience that could help? -Harmil 14:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not practical to have every image checked individually: about a thousand "Don't know" images are uploaded every week, and many of them don't have source information. I'll work on a message telling the uploader where they can go for more information, but ultimately, it's up to the uploader to get the problems fixed. --Carnildo 08:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, is the bot supposed notify people about every image they uploaded with problems? I was going through the backlog on Aug 2 of untagged images, and I see this User:Washi uploaded a whole bunch of those, but he got notified only regarding one image. Is that the way it was supposed to be? Renata 00:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I try not to have the bot flood people with messages: before I implemented the rate-limit, people were getting hit with 50+ messages a day. When it's in tagging mode, it'll notify someone no more than once in an hour, no matter how many images they've uploaded in that hour. When it's in removal mode, it'll notify someone no more than once a day, regardless of how many images from that person it's removing. All the messages it uses should tell the person to check any other images they've uploaded. --Carnildo 08:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I have a close relaitonship with the ICJP and I know I am allowed to use their logo (they have sent it to me in order to make my own letterhead ... what should I do to get their permission to you?

Thanks --Dahveed323 22:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC) David[reply]

Hi David. Permission for inclusion in Wikipedia is not useful because our goal is not to build this web site, but to create an encyclopedia of free content that is useable by anyone, anywhere. Nevertheless, we do make an exception for logos to be used in articles about their organizations. User:Sue Anne has tagged this image appropriately, so it will not be deleted. Take a look at her edit here for future reference. ×Meegs 11:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I indicated the source and the location of the image —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kyrie eleison (talk • contribs) 2006 August 18.

Hi, orphan bot sent me a message on this, but it was a pre-existing image that I shramk and re-uploaded. Can you help me better understand the intricacies of fair use? I wanted to speedy tag the thing myself, but it seems important to the article and is probably mis-tagged. Thanks  :) Dlohcierekim 15:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dlohcierekim. Fair use is an exception to U.S. copyright law that allows the republication of works without permission from their owner. It's defined by four factors that are explained in fair use, and is quite complicated. Wikipedia's policy for unfree content reflects both U.S. law and the project's goals as a free content encyclopedia. One problem with this particular image is that it probably does not meet our policy's first criterion (here). Notwithstanding, the reason that you received the message from orphanbot was because you did not provide fair use rationale for the image's use in its articles. If you have any specific questions, please ask them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. ×Meegs 11:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Carnildo 3

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi, this image was sourced from wikimapia, but we were unsure how to license it at the time and didnt get back to adding the license tag, what should we do, (we is myself and a friend who created and update the st john's college, woodlawn article, the school we go to) thanks in advance for your help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Perkins88 (talk • contribs) 2006 August 20.

I assume that you are talking about Image:Wilson River -Woodlawn.JPG. That image was deleted because it did list any information about its copyright holder (who is not wikimapia, either). Do you know what government or corporation created this photo? Many (but not all) satellite photos are made by NASA and are in the public domain. Carnildo is on vacation right now, but we can help you with the issues involved if you leave a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. You can also reach me on my talk page. ×Meegs 10:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:54dd.jpg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Highpriestess (talk • contribs) 2006 August 20.

Hello Highpriestess, Carnildo is on vacation. I see that this image's article was deleted after your request on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United faith ministries. I've deleted the image as well. If you'd like to talk about it further, please leave a message on my talk page or at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. ×Meegs 10:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I had replaced the photo on this page and used all the proper tagging of the photo. It is a government photo - USDA Forest Service. If there was something else I needed to tag it with, I would like to know that for the future when working with Wikipedia.

Thank you.

Image:Atlanticpuffin.JPG -source now added, jimfbleak 12:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carnildo,

I have shrunk and reloaded one of his images. Then I got a message from ophanbot. Do we attribute his images some way other than fairuse?

Thanks,  :) Dlohcierekim 12:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OrphanBot recently went through a slew of Formula 1-related images, so I've been double-checking on the ones it has tagged.

I would like to discuss [5]

It is listed as a promotional image from a press kit from Autosport. OrphanBot didn't parse that information in the description, from what I can tell.

How would one go about adding copyright and fair-use information here? Let's discuss.

Additionally, I would like to get what you think regarding this fair-use magazine cover: [6]

Cordially, --Guroadrunner 11:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, probably what would be best would be to add a variant of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Promotional_images to both. What is your opinion? --Guroadrunner 12:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Get my image back!!! Please I own it you can't just remove it!!!!!!!! You know what This is not a bot it is a BUG a bot won't take YOUR images, only a bug can do that!!!!! Please I need that image you can't just take it!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zharta (talk • contribs)

This has been resolved at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Jkelly 19:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I have proposed to make a project about Waldorf education because the page is a mess and under constant edit wars. I have proposed it as a project, but don't wish to duplicate efforts- would you prefer that we make this a sub-project of your own project? I can see needing at leat 4 work pages and I already have the support of one administrator and input from one unbiased Wikipedian, plus three others who are willing to work on the project. Will this be OK with you - and I would welcome your unbiased input as well - I am mainly peacekeeping on this. Wonderactivist 15:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Carnildo, is Orphanbot broken? User:Zoe|(talk) 21:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it's only slightly bent. The edit it made immediately before that was to an image with the unusual title of Image:My.php?image=ikwyd2fl.jpg. I would not be surprised if that screwed up something for that one edit. Other notices seem to be all right. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OrphanBot's got minor problems with titles containing characters that have special meanings in HTML or URLs, such as "&", "?", and "=". Most of the time, it does the right thing when dealing with them, and images with those characters don't show up very often, so fixing the last few bugs is very low priority. --Carnildo 19:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your work. Thank you for orphanbot. I look forward to you regaining adminship so you can help straighten out the mess. Best regards,  :) Dlohcierekim 17:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that your bot, OrphanBot, is removing GFDL images, and tagging them under no source. Just thought I'd let you know. Visit the history of the Ford Taurus page for an example. Karrmann 19:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OrphanBot's right to do so. The GFDL requires that the author of the image be specified on the image description page; with no author, our use of the image constitutes a copyright violation. Further, since a source isn't specified, it's impossible to tell if the image is really licensed under the GFDL, or if someone put the wrong tag on the image. --Carnildo 19:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A grammatic technicality, but a bot is an automated, non-human machine, and therefore currently does not have rights in the same sense as humans. -- 71.226.112.183 09:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another grammatic technicality: I'm using "right" in the sense of "correct", not in the sense of "rights". An automated machine is certainly able to do things correctly or incorrectly. --Carnildo 18:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carnildo,

I thought that I had provided the source and copyright information on the image Alfred Hunt 2.jpg.

Since Alfred Hunt is a relative I have inherited this photograph. It is my personal property. I have no knowledge that this photograph has ever been published or granted a copyright.

Your assistance in this matter is appreciated. Kindly keep me informed.

Robert M. Hunt 13:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, probably the best thing to do is make a note of that fact on the image description page and add the {{PD-self}} tag. --Carnildo 02:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're an expert at tagging copyvio images, you might want to have a look at Cyprus Photo Gallery, as it's nothing but a collection of unsourced images that look like copyvios. The page has been tagged for speedy, and if it's gone by the time you get there, look at the contribs for User:Darthguevara. I'd do it, but I'm not familiar with the process. Akradecki 20:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's been dealt with properly. --Carnildo 02:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have a lot of experience with dealing with people who insist on violating fair use policy, so would you mind taking a look at these? Spider-Man 3, talk and WP:MCQ. I realise you're busy and all, but that animated poster is really doing my head in... Borisblue 00:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As it appears you are unaware, there has been a question added to your RfA regarding the February wheel war incident. Many users are awaiting your answer. -- tariqabjotu 02:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it's actually been there for quite some time... I didn't bother coming here sooner because I figured SURELY you must know about it already and why bother... but perhaps you did not. I think addressing it (and using it to address the many concerns raised, for example see Giano's oppose, his discussion on my talk page, Bishonen's oppose and others) would be quite helpful.++Lar: t/c 12:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just came here to write the same thing that I see the above two have already written. It seems to be pretty important, and may make the difference in the request succeeding. It's pretty clear that without answering the question, the nomination won't succeed. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I managed to miss seeing it entirely. Normally, I read pages using the history, so I see every change that's been made, but with my RFA, it's been so busy I've just clicked on the "current version" link and checked the tallys. --Carnildo 00:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The head and shoulders shot of Joe Glenn, University of Wyoming's head football coach, was removed because of improper copy right information. I obtained the photo from the UW Sports Information Office upon my request.

Please advise as to how I can properly credit the photo.

Jeff Fry

Someone told me that you knew a lot about image copyrights. I was wondering if you could verify and repair if necessary the license tag for Image:ImpRADM.png. Fritz Saalfeld has contested the current copyright status, saying that he does not believe it is a screenshot. He was not sure what tag should be changed to though. I uploaded this image, but I'm not sure if who has the copyright either. The image is a remake of an old JPEG on Wikipedia. I believe the older image was a screenshot of an old StarWars computer game. Here's the story. On another old JPEG, User:-cg- took it and made a new image based on it in Photoshop that was really nice looking. It was the same layout, only it was definatley a different picture. The old image was blurry, highly compressed, and small. He made it look sort of 3D-ish. Then a while later, I took that image that -cg- made and rearranged its components to make Image:ImpRADM.png. Who would hold the copyright for this image? Thank you. Jecowa 06:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the correct copyright tag is. It's clearly based on the video game, so it can only be used under a "fair use" claim, but at the same time, it's not a screenshot. Probably the best thing to do is tag it with a generic {{fair use}} tag, then add an explanation as to why it meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. --Carnildo 07:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Jecowa 14:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

I sent you a message a while back while you were on holiday but you didn't respond to it (its above on this page). OrphanBot deleted an image of Dr. John Ralston Saul called Bigphotojonralstonsaulcc.jpg on 09:52, 7 April 2006.

This was Dr. Saul's official photography from the website of the Governor General of Canada (Saul was Viceregal consort of Canada). The photo was taken by Rideau Hall which is linked to the Department of National Defence of Canada. I know this means it was not Public Domain, however, it was produced with the intention that it be readily available to the general public. It was available in high resolution downloan on www.gg.ca, and was also available for free as a glossy print to anyone who called a 1-800 number or wrote to Rideau Hall (for example if the Royal Canadian Legion wanted a new photo of the Vice-Regal Consort...a really useless role and im sure there weren't many requests).

Since there is no pd alternative, I think it can safely be reuploaded and put on the page as either a promotional photo or as an official canadian politician photo {{Canada-politician-photo}} (although the vice-regal consort, as consort to the head of state is above politics...but Saul openly questioned the Government of Paul Martin so he really wasn't...

Anyway, he was going to speak at my University and I was going to print off that photo for him to sign, but it was gone. And since he and Adrienne Clarkson are no longer in office the photo is not available on gg.ca anymore. If you can't reupload it, can you possible e-mail it to me ?

Thanks Dowew 08:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you've got the image name correct? OrphanBot's logs don't show it ever having encountered an image with that name. --Carnildo 07:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed to blocks of copyvio from this. You are the handiest expert on copyright I can think of. The bulk of the remainder of the article is from IMDB. My inclination is to blank it and slap on a copyvio sticker. If you can provide me with an alternative to that or rewriting the thing myself, I'll do it. Otherwise, I feel the nest thing is to get rid of it. :) Dlohcierekim 01:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a version in history that hasn't been copied from somewhere, you can revert to that version. Otherwise, the only thing to do is list it as a copyvio. --Carnildo 02:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks,  :) Dlohcierekim 11:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In responce to your post above, yes, the name is correct see [[7]]. Does OrphanBot delete the log after a while or something ? Dowew 20:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OrphanBot didn't remove the image from that page. It was removed on May 23, 2006 by 69.195.23.55, and deleted on July 13 by Petros471 as an unused fair-use image. You might be confusing this with OrphanBot's removal of Image:Jrs jyt230.jpg on April 7. The image was deleted recently enough that it's probably possible to undelete it; try contacting Petros471. --Carnildo 05:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you accept?

You are aware that there is a RFA for Carnildo in progres right now right? I suggest focusing on that, and not launch any new ones untill the current one have at least closed. Launching a new RFA before the last one have even closed is not likely to be well recieved. --Sherool (talk) 13:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems rather cold to have the first thing that a person may get on their user talk page is an orphanbot message. Is there a way to have orphanbot check to see if the talk page doesn't exist yet, and if it doesn't, then also add a Welcome or Welcomeip template to the page? ^BlankVerse 12:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the past, suggestions for automated welcoming messages have been frowned upon. --Carnildo 21:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am familar with the general consensus against systemwide automated welcome messages (which wouldn't even need a bot since the welcome could easily be added directly to the MediaWiki software). I was only suggesting for the special case where the orphanbot is about to add a warning to a blank talk page, it should also add a welcome to the obvious newbies and point them to the Wikipedia rules and guidelines before it gives its warning about violating one of those rules. ^BlankVerse 15:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a suggested wording? --Carnildo 20:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record of what the current warning is, one example is:

Thanks for uploading Image:Princessdiaries2.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages: :Wikipedia:Image use policy :Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC) (italics mine)

The only recommendation I would have is to change "This is an automated notice by OrphanBot." to "This is an automated notice by OrphanBot, a robot run by Wikipedia administrator Carnildo."

I also would include something in the first sentence saying, "Hello, my name is OrphanBot. Thanks for uploading XX (...)" This accomplishes two things:

• 1) It establishes who is sending the warning.
• 2) It greets the user, who may be a total newbie.

Personally, I felt "biting the newbies" was something OrphanBot unintentionally did, and this may have been the source of some of the aggravation that you end up receiving. Hit me back with what you think.

--Guroadrunner 10:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I'd like to say that the new wording released on or around 5 September is much better than the one that was used on 4 September or before. For the record, that was:

Thanks for uploading Image:B60s-Clocking.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

Wikipedia:Image use policy

Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC) (italics again mine)

Thank you for making that modification, because I think it is much friendlier than the one that OrphanBot used before.

P.S. - congrats on the adminship.

--Guroadrunner 10:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My two big concerns with any change in the wording are that I don't want new users thinking OrphanBot is a person, and I want users to take their questions to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions rather than my talkpage, OrphanBot's talkpage, or OrphanBot's userpage. --Carnildo 04:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A little help here. What copyright tag is this picture missing?--The Judge 20:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to Image:B60s-Clocking.jpg, you need to add what television program it's from and who the copyright holder is to the image description page. --Carnildo 20:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The television show is Easy, but how do I find out the copyright holder? Actually I just realized that's not a screenshot, it's more like a promotional image released for publicity or that sort of thing.--The Judge 20:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this good enough?: "Promotional picture of Walter Slazak as the Clock King in Batman".

If you're going to claim it's a promotional image, you need to provide proof that it is indeed from promotional material intended to be distributed widely. Far too many people use the "promotional" claim to mean "I can't be bothered to find out where this is from". --Carnildo 21:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don'd worry, I'm not one of those. I want to get the sourcing right. From this specific picture I'm learning how to do it, because a well sourced picture makes a well sourced article. I'm mean, articles need sources, so that the readers know the editors are not just talking crazy. If the article has a picture, with nice sourcing, it is quickly placed in context. It starts looking real. So, I need to get this picture right. --The Judge 21:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This picture is the exact same case as Image:Gorshinriddler.JPG, or Image:Egghead batman.jpg and Image:Jnewmarcat.jpg--The Judge 21:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sould the tag {{fair use in|)} be placed in all pictures like that??--The Judge 22:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fix all of those, did I finalle got it right? Did I missed something?--The Judge 06:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You still need to provide evidence that those are promotional images. Ideally this would be a link to a "press kit" or "promotional images" section of an official website. --Carnildo 06:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, you're an admin again. Based on your continued good work, the large amounts of support you got, and extenuating circumstances a group of bureacrats has decided to promote you for two months with review by the arbcom after that. Keep up the good work, take into account the opposition to the extent that you can improve and can use it to help the project. - Taxman ^Talk 04:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats. I think the bureaucrats have made the right decision!-gadfium 04:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well deserved. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

congrats! alphaChimp^(talk) 04:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use it well. Congrats. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 05:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats. Please, do not fail us. -- ReyBrujo 05:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Don't worry, I'm not going to fly off the handle and block everyone who opposed me or anything like that. --Carnildo 06:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, congrats :D. Now, if you are interested in some "light warmup" we seem to have a 1500+ image backlog developing over at Category:Orphaned fairuse images bring a mop ;) --Sherool (talk) 06:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! :) Bugtrio | Talk 08:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats and good luck. Yanksox 10:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! The news of you being promoted has made my day. I was a bit concerned that you wouldn't make it with the amount of opposes given, but I'm glad that you got through and there is no doubt that you will do a great job like you did before. Keep up the fantastic work with OrphanBot! :-) DarthVader 12:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations and best of luck.-- danntm ^T _C 13:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Despite opposing in your rfa, I do wish you the best. I don't envy your position, being the subject of such a contentious rfa and outcome can not be pleasant. Regards, MartinRe 13:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huzzah! I was sure your nomination would not succeed due to the # of opposes, but I'm heartened to see that you have been given back the powah anyway. Good luck! --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 16:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back! --Ixfd64 09:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, allow me to offer this late congrats message to you. I am confident that you have learnt from your past mistakes and totally deserve a second chance to prove your worth on this project. I am very delighted to see you as an admin again! --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OrphanBot recently went through a slew of Formula 1-related images, so I've been double-checking on the ones it has tagged.

I would like to discuss [8]

It is listed as a promotional image from a press kit from Autosport. OrphanBot didn't parse that information in the description, from what I can tell.

How would one go about adding copyright and fair-use information here? Let's discuss.

Additionally, I would like to get what you think regarding this fair-use magazine cover: [9]

Cordially, --Guroadrunner 11:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, probably what would be best would be to add a variant of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Promotional_images to both. What is your opinion? --Guroadrunner 12:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regards, GURoadrunner

These examples are now moot, as they were deleted. However, one was a magazine cover that had been on Wikipedia for yonks that was used under (I believe correct) fair use. --Guroadrunner 10:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the edit histories for Image:In Ayrton Senna 01.jpg and Image:Rntbrm3litergp.jpg, they were tagged as {{fairuseF1}}. The template was deleted via TfD, since there's nothing inherently fair use about images of Formula One things, and as is standard procedure, the template was redirected to {{no license}}. OrphanBot picked up on this and, since the {{fairuseF1}} template doesn't specify the date the image was tagged, added a dated {{no license}} template. It later removed the images from use.

Image:Rntbrm3litergp.jpg was not fair use in any of the articles it was used in. In H engine and British Racing Motors, neither the magazine cover nor the magazine was discussed -- rather, the magazine cover was used as a picture of an object that happened to appear on the cover. In Road & Track, the magazine cover was used in a gallery, and galleries without commentary are not fair use. --Carnildo 18:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting. I understand better how this all worked out. Thanks for the detailed response. --Guroadrunner 06:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just so we're on the same page, the gallery of images with screenshots (but also commentaries) at the bottom of History_of_Microsoft_Flight_Simulator is kosher, correct?

* - Mind you, I'm already looking into replacing the not-necessarily-acceptable Image:Msfs4-screen.gif.

Regards, --Guroadrunner 05:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's acceptable, although it would be better if the gallery was split up and each picture was placed in the section for the version of MSFS it was illustrating. --Carnildo 04:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Preferably, it would be nice for articles for all of those versions of MSFS. Truly, --Guroadrunner 04:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forthe sake of your own integrity and the integrity of Wikipedia, I encourage you to resign your adminship and await consensus in a future RfA nomination. Juppiter 16:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. --Mcginnly | Natter 17:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I've restored this thread - there are serious issues here with such a low promotion ratio - perhaps carnildo didn't see it before it was deleted? With an eye on the dicussion at WP:RFA I'd urge you to at least consider resigning or share your thoughts as to why you think such a devisive appointment will be good for the project. Many thanks. --Mcginnly | Natter 01:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mcginnly, by "promotion ratio" do you mean the number of new admins for a week's period divided by the total number of users on the English Wikipedia? For those interested, here is the poll data from Carnildo adminship nomination.

• 57.7% in favor
• 36.9% against
• 05.7% neutral

Jecowa 03:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the suggestion that I should resign my adminship, "no thanks". There's too much work that needs to be done. --Carnildo 03:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you consider agreeing to not using the block button? Use of blocking seems to be the root of the disagreement here, eh? Friday (talk) 14:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carnildo has been re-promoted and is hence empowered to use any sysop tools he so chooses, in the eminently responsible manner expected of a Wikipedia administrator. If you wish to take issue with his promotion, please do so with the bureaucrats responsible for the decision, not with Carnildo himself. — Dan | talk 17:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I bought a book and it has a picture that I want to use. How can I do this? The author is dead and here is the book [[10]]. Thank you. Chaldean

Depends. What image is it, and what do you want to use it for? --Carnildo 05:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image already had a rationale but the OrphanBot marked it as lacking it. Should I add the word "rationale"? :) It's ridiculous. --Brand спойт 10:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on your repromotion. Before I took a long wiki-break, I was quite active in dealing with copyright violations and fair-use policy. Now that I'm back, I'm working on these things yet again. I'm cleaning through WP:CP, WP:PUI, and categories for questionable or disputed fair use claims. I know that you've run orphanbot for a long time; what new things are you doing with your new admin abilities? I'd like to work with you. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 13:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, I'm working on a tool to assist in dealing with Category:Images with no copyright tag. Once I'm done with that, I'll probably be spending time dealing with that category and with problem images that OrphanBot discovers while processing uploads. --Carnildo 04:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering, I am about to close a TfD, and I need to know what would replace this? By the way, congratulations on your re-promotion, you deserve it. Best regards, RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 00:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi your Bot told me I haven't tagged an Image:Stadion2006.jpg. Since I carefully tagged it I think the fault lies in a different direction. The image has been tagged 3 times. Ozdaren 08:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has addressed this question at WP:MCQ. ×Meegs 09:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm giving these messages to everyone I know, and it's not the wrong kind of WikiLove (lol)... Cheers!

license.

Please re-upload, thanks!

Firedancer414 01:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update -- cheers, good luck with your bot, 18.220.1.58 04:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I bought a book and it has a picture that I want to use. How can I do this? The author is dead and here is the book [[11]]. Thank you. Chaldean

Depends. What image is it, and what do you want to use it for? --Carnildo 05:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for taking a long time to get back to you but this is the image;[[12]] I want to use it for the Assyrian people page. Chaldean 22:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not usable on Wikipedia. The book isn't out of copyright, and there doesn't appear to be anything special about the image that makes it usable under Wikipedia:Fair use. Under current copyright law, the image will enter the public domain in the year 2023. --Carnildo 04:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still doing the 100 analysis? Jkelly 23:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I finished the latest update on September 1, but I haven't gotten around to posting it to the mailing list. You can get a sneak preview at User:Carnildo/The 100. --Carnildo 04:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you made it. :) Dlohcierekim 02:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore File:Allentown pa seal.gif -- it already has a copyright, for a coat of arms / seal. Firedancer414 05:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Just would like to inform you that I changed the map linked to Miss World. I also recommended for deletion the version which you/your program also recommended to. This is because the image, aside from not displaying copyright information, displays the wrong information--it shows Turkey winning the title twice, although it only won once, in 2002. The tag I put in [[Image:Miss World Map.png]] is that it is a redundant image, although in reality, it is not just redundant, it is incorrect. If there is a more appropriate tag to use, feel free to change it. Thanks. Joey80 13:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ddanno35 has a long history of uploading unsourced images all classified as fair use but without rationales either. This looks like a painful manual job. Any chance you could get OrphanBot to tag them all?--Konstable 06:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which images are you referring to? With the exception of Image:Cocola Building.JPG, which is clearly mistagged, and Image:Gary Cocola.JPG, which is already tagged as "no license", everything he's uploaded appears to be a logo. We're not too strict about enforcing sourcing and rationales for logos, since the source tends to be self-evident, and the fair-use rationale for using a logo on the article about the subject the logo identifies is pretty obvious. --Carnildo 22:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know that OrphanBot (talk · contribs) will notify the uploaders of {{no source}}- and {{no license}}-tagged images; but will it notify the uploaders if an image is tagged with {{no rationale}}? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pd THOR (talk • contribs) 21:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aparently it does indeed do that. --Sherool (talk) 22:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If OrphanBot applies the tag, it will notify the uploader. The only exception to this is if OrphanBot has already notified the uploader about another image in the past hour. --Carnildo 22:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I can't believe I forgot to sign that. Well, thanks for the info anyways! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 23:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if your bot had missed out something recently, but there is a surge in backlog of I4 images because they are all waiting to be orphaned, and doing it by hand is extremely slow. Any chance your bot might help out and run through the categories? - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 10:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The new category-tree extension to Wikipedia broke the bot's ability to spot subcategories. I'm working on fixing it. --Carnildo 18:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've got something of a fix more-or-less working. Hopefully it will continue working until the new bot API is available. --Carnildo 03:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Right. If you can manage to keep staying out of the massive bloodshed of the WP:RFAR#Giano, et al., I'll look hard to find another barnstar to give you. :-). I'm highly impressed that you managed to avoid being an involved party in the fratricide. The best thing you can do is to keep keeping your head down and doing the right thing. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You contributed to the discussion at Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy. If you have the time and interest, I'm asking contributors to past a brief summary of their position on the proposal here, thanks. Herostratus 20:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Radiant replaced the old version (which the summaries are based on) with his own preferred version, so if/when you comment, you should keep in mind that the summaries are for a version not currently accessible without looking through the history for diffs. Captainktainer * Talk 22:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A request was made on WP:CVU relating to Wikipedia:Vandalism. I have protected the latter page in an earlier version to ward off a revert war; since you edited it recently, please take a look at the current situation. Thank you. >Radiant< 00:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have objected to: your edit starting the war, to the edit war itself and to the block. See my comments [here].--Blue Tie 04:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Carnildo. I am currently involved in a dispute with two editors about the use of the Gulf Oil logo in the Betelgeuse incident article. It seems to me that this logo does not significantly contribute to the article, and thus fails the eighth point of the Wikipedia fair-use policy. The Total logo has just recently been added to the article, and though I haven't yet said anything about it, I think this image also adds nothing significant. I would appreciate your opinion on the matter; the discussion is ongoing at Image talk:Gulf.png. Thank you for your time. —Bkell (talk) 17:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've just learned that the controversy over PD-Soviet and PD-USSR tags have reached a conclusion and that the decision is that they're not valid. Someone wrote a great start to the Constructivist architecture article recently that was extensively illustrated with images of drawings and photographs of Constructivist buildings and projects. I've re-tagged all the drawings with {{Art}} and given source information. I've re-tagged all the photographs with {{Statue}} because the tag rationale states:"for images of three-dimensional works of art that are still under copyright" to me this sounds like architecture - (architects distinguish the common or garden building, typically just called construction, from architecture which is considered to be art). Could someone please give me some feedback on whether or not they think this might be a valid approach? I've posted on the copyright questions and fair use wikiproject, but I've not had any response. Thanks. --Mcginnly | Natter 17:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ex-PD-USSR images should be treated just like any other images for the purpose of determining fair use.

• Any image published before 1923 is in the public domain in the US at the very least, and should be tagged as {{PD-US-1923}}, or if the author is known to have died more than 50 or 70 years ago, with {{PD-old-50}} or {{PD-old-70}} respectively.
• Reproductions of copyrighted artwork should be tagged as {{Art}}
• Non-free photographs of copyrighted sculptures can only be used if it's not possible to make a free photograph of it: a free-licensed photograph of a copyrighted statue is still fair use because of the copyright on the statue, but at least it's only violating one copyright, not two.
• Photographs of buildings are tricky: the US does not permit you to copyright a building, but some other countries do, and in any case, the photographer holds copyright on his picture of the building. These should only be used if the photograph itself is worthy of discussion, or if it's not possible to make a free-licensed replacement.
• The gallery needs to go. As a general rule, galleries of non-free images do not qualify for fair use, as there's no discussion of the images.

--Carnildo 03:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano has been opened. It concerns you to a certain degree. However other than point out how your RfA might be appealed I doubt there will be any direct effect on you. You can always apologize some more, or even grovel a bit, but that is up to you. Fred Bauder 17:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing my best to stay away from the whole mess. I'll keep an eye on it, though. --Carnildo 02:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen the steaming cesspit that's turned into, I'm glad I'm not involved. I don't suppose the ArbCom would take it well if I were to indefinitely block everyone involved? --Carnildo 07:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A couple malfunctioning bot edits you might take a look at:

• [13]
• [14]
• [15]
• [16]

Seems to be a non-persistant problem, and the other bot seems to be catching it anyway, so I decided to unblock, hopefully it will resume with the talk page notifications without manual reset, as it did not seem to be having any problems in that namespace. —freak(talk) 20:13, Sep. 25, 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked it again, since if it carries on we'll need to manually sort out all the images not to mention one of the bots constantly pinging it as a vandal on IRC. Hopefully this way it can be restarted to do the job properly. --pgk 20:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found and fixed the bug. It was only a problem with removing images from articles; tagging of new uploads was working properly. I'm working on updating the bot to detect when it's been blocked; right now, it can't tell the difference between a protected article, a blank page, and being blocked. --Carnildo 02:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your bot posted a message on my talk page, but I didn't upload the image, I just cropped out some white space on it. The message should of been posted on the original person that uploaded, they should be able to provide any copyright info. I have no idea where the image came from. --Holderca1 22:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For an image with multiple uploads, the bot does its best to figure out which images are vandalism, which are reverts, which are minor adjustments, and which are entirely new images. Sometimes it get it wrong. To help the bot figure things out, include an upload summary describing what you did when you upload a modified version of an image: the bot looks for keywords such as "crop" or "adjust" to identify minor modifications. --Carnildo 06:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I added an edit summary to the image. Hopefully the bot corrects itself. --Holderca1 11:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshots only need the screenshot tag, see Image:Maple0495.jpg Mapletip 01:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshots also need to say what they're a screenshot of. It's rarely self-evident. --Carnildo 06:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi could you please explain at Template talk:Infobox Scientist why it is not a fair use to put logos in bio boxes. --Peta 05:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recieved a message from OrphanBot.[17] I recently uploaded Image:Morning Glory Photo.jpg, of which the message was about.[18] I was wondering: what other info must I add? Or else, was this message in error? Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 10:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's the bot that's in error. OrphanBot considers copyright tags to be either "tags that provide the source of the image in the body of the tag", or "tags that do not provide the source of the image". It's got no provision for a tag that either may or may not include source information. --Carnildo 06:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carnildo. I've been spending some time lately deleting images from places like CAT:NL, CAT:NS, CAT:NT, and CAT:NR. I recently was requested to remove these image's redlinks from the articles when doing so, and could use some advice. Just deleting these takes a lot of time, and it would require much more of me to remove these from the articles too (not to mention all the random stuff it would add to my already overgrown watchlist) are there any shortcuts for removing redlinks? I'm thinking of creating an alternate account for this, do you think this is a good idea? I know OrphanBot can do this, is there any place to get more info or any automated ways to help? Thanks and regards, DVD+ R/W 02:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For CAT:NL and CAT:NS, probably the best thing to do is let OrphanBot deal with the images, but the bot can only do that before the image is deleted. If OrphanBot hasn't removed it by the time it's ready for deletion, the image is probably in an infobox or inlined into the text, and needs a human to figure out how to remove it. I'd expand the bot's work to CAT:NT, but most of those images were tagged by the bot to begin with, and some people are violently opposed to having a bot completely responsible for enforcing the image use policy. CAT:NR images really need a human evaluation, as the bot isn't perfect at figuring out what is a rationale and what isn't.

A semi-automated editor such as AutoWikiBrowser might be able to speed up removing redlinks, but other than that, I don't have any suggestions. --Carnildo 06:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bot's userpage says you're the esteemed operator. :) Unfortunately, it appears the bot was blanking pages instead of removing images, so I've given it a fifteen minute block in the hopes that will stop it. Apologies for any inconvenience; if you're hit by any autoblocks, you're free to contact me, and I'll deal with them ASAP (though I'm off to work in about an hour or so). Though, as I think I recognize your name, I suppose you could take care of those on your own. Please do contact me if there was a better way for me to handle this. Thanks! Luna Santin 20:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The hazards of maintaining two codebases: the bugfix I did yesterday for OrphanBot didn't make it to FairuseBot. I've fixed the bug and the bot should be working properly now. --Carnildo 20:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, You don't know me, but I'm the poor fool who asked for the arbitration case currently titled "Giano." I didn't do it to single him out, but he was the focal point for a flurry of discussion following your recent re-admin. What distressed me most, and why I submitted the arbcom case, is many people in those discussions would make claims about other editor's motives and intentions...claims of malfeasance and deliberate intent to harm the project, without evidence or desire to seek resolution through proper channels. Now, for many (like Giano), they have no faith in those channels, so I can understand that. But I feel it's damaging to the project, and to each other, to question someone's motives and assume the worst, without the will to back such statements up.

I was nervous requesting this case, and I still am, even as people have come to me questioning who I am, what my motives might be, and making suggestions about my weak editing history (I've under 20 main space edits). But I think this case is making some progress, and has a chance to do some real good. Folks like Giano, who feel betrayed by the system, had been demanding arbcom speak up...and now they're doing so.

Which is why I've come to you. I don't know if you've been following things, or had a chance to look over Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano/Workshop lately. As I said, I think progress is being made. For Giano, directly, a motion has been suggested to wipe certain entries from his block log (one of the big concerns he's had in recent past). Now, I know Giano has stated you refuse to apologize, but I know you acknowledged the blocks of Giano and El C were a mistake on your last RFA application. I wanted to ask if you'd review the Workshop, and consider proposing a Remedy in the case of your own. An "official statement," if you will. So far, no one has suggested you do anything (or anything be done to you) in this case...and I would object to any remedies requiring you to officially apologize, resign, or just wear a grapefruit on your head for a month.

I think if you voluntarily made a statement it might help heal some wounds for some of the editors involved. If you'd like, please contact me via email and we can discuss privately what you'd like to say (that is, of course, if you read this and feel I have any way with words whatsoever. My teachers used to think I had a way with words, usually "criminal" was how they would describe it).

Thanks for your time. --InkSplotch 13:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoo. I'd advise extreme care here. With all due respect, while I stand by my support of your re-adminship request, your bot, your image work, etc., you have, on occasions of stress, said things that some may regret. This is clearly an occasion of stress, and so far I've been quite glad you've stayed as far away as you have, see above. There is also an excellent chance that by getting involved you will become a target in the line of fire, as everyone suddenly remembers what the original problem was all about. If you must say something, by all means, please, do run it by InkSplotch for maximum removal of rough edges. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're in a real deep whole. From the looks of above discussion it appears you routinely associate with the criminal element to bail you out. Unblock Reciprocal article - I am going over your head. you and you adnnministrator partners have grossly slandered Mr. Koenig - his real name. I am not Mr. Koenig and you know it.

I don't care who you are. You've been disrupting the encyclopedia on a number of pages, so I've protected the pages. There's nothing that says Wikipedia needs to provide you with a forum. --Carnildo 23:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the speedy on that...I noticed, though that you didn't throw in the four tildas on your close message! Just a gentle nudge.... Akradecki 01:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dostoevsky_pamyatnik_Darovoe.jpg== Thanks for uploading Image:200px-Dostoevsky_pamyatnik_Darovoe.jpg
Why am I getting a message I did not provide a source when I did? LoveMonkey 05:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because "from Russian Wikipedia" isn't a source. You need to indicate where the Russian Wikipedia got the image from. --Carnildo 07:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. . Orphan bot should log to an other page than the talk page.
2. . You should add werdnabot to this talk page :)

How do I delete an image I uploaded? Is it possible or do I have to wait it out for an administrator to delete it?. Thanks, Valley2city 17:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This one may be public domain. At the very least, someone on the Italian Wikipedia seems to think so. They makesa case that Nicaragua only has a 20-year right of copyright. But I don't know this independently, and it could be incorrect. In any case, I linked to where Wikipedia almost certainly got it from, but that site does not provide copyright information. - Jmabel | Talk 03:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like 70 years here. Biruitorul 04:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carnildo, I see that orphanbot now also handles PD-USSR uploads. Does it also handle the redirects PD-Soviet and Sovietpd? See e.g. Image:1938.jpg, uploaded on September 25, 2006... Lupo 10:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet. Those redirects are rare enough that I never added them to the bot's list. --Carnildo 02:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I was wondering if it would be possible for orphanbot to lend a hand with something that's come up on WP:CP. Some guy uploaded a ton of images, all from the same site, all with a spurious fair use claim. Would it be possible for orphanbot to orphan all of them to ease the process of manual deletion when the time comes? The user in question is Johnsatchmo, and the images are everything here. Thanks, --Robth^Talk 19:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can do. --Carnildo 01:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[19] Could you remove this notice by your bot. I manually made a tag originally for this article. There just is no premade tag. Hello32020 21:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is a pre-made tag suitable for it: {{fair use in|Hurricane Isbell (1964)}}. The tag isn't listed in the dropdown because it requires more information (the name of the article it's going to be used in) than can be provided by that menu. --Carnildo 01:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a list of pictures that your OrphanBot failed to delete. I will update this list occasonally, and content may be removed by me -KingpinE7

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bon_Echo_Beta_2_Screen_Shot_1.PNG
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:FF2RC1Temp.jpg

(PS how do I delete images myself, if that's possible?)

Only an administrator can delete an image. The best way to get images you've uploaded deleted is to add {{db|uploader request}} to the image description page. --Carnildo 01:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed Orpanbot removed an image from the info box in Alyssa Milano in this edit. Notice how an upper-case "I" in "Img" is changed to lower-case "img". Later I added back another image in this edit, leaving the spelling of the paramater as "img", and as a result the image did not display. I didn't think case was important with paramaters. Anyways, I wished to suggest Orphanbot not change the case of the paramater (but just remove the file name). --Rob 02:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing it out. I've fixed the problem. --Carnildo 03:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's the problem with this Image:Akane Kimidori.jpg? I copypasted the info from a picture I though was ok. It is from Dragon Ball and the character was created by Akira Toriyama.--201 07:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any rational explanation why OrphanBot targets the same images that were assaulted by User:YellowDot, who proclaims himself a "human version of OrphanBot"? This self-professed newbie seems to possess a weird gift of prognosticating the bot's actions. What is the relationship between the two? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 10:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the only relationship is that YellowDot is targeting those images that OrphanBot can't: images that require human judgement to tell if they don't have source information, or an incorrect license, or that they violate Wikipedia:Fair use criteria, for example. Once YellowDot places an image in Category:Images with unknown source or Category:Images with unknown copyright status, OrphanBot will remove it from articles and notify the uploader, but it would do the same no matter who placed it in those categories.

As a side note, unless explicitly stated otherwise, all image use policies are retroactive. This means that all images need source information, and all images claimed as "fair use" need to follow the fair use criteria. --Carnildo 18:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind explanation. It seems to imply that it's you who control both accounts. Actually, I and my friends work hard to provide free replacements to fair use images uploaded in the past, but it takes time to persuade other people to grant free licenses for their images. It's a pity that your policies are retroactive. In real life, you can't be fined for something that was not punishable by law at the time of your "offense", can you? Furthermore, after you upload as many images as I did, you'll understand that it's not realistic to demand an url for pictures uploaded two years ago. Web pages generally don't live that long and our memory has its limits. P.S. Please consider archiving this page; it took me eternity to scroll down to the bottom. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 20:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Correcting the name of the user from Yellow Dot to YellowDot. -- Guroadrunner 05:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Orphanbot I uploaded that image yes but I did try to tag it do not know how. This is the - Tag name. Can you please do it if you can and remove the tag that has been put because I got this snaps from a camera. And so I uploaded it. Will be greatfull to you for the reply if you can give. Here is the image pageImage Page

Hello, I uploaded this image a little while ago and was warned that if I do not source it properly, it will be deleted in a week. Well, I have decided that I have no use for this image anymore (I was going to use it in a userbox) so you can have it deleted whenever you want. No need to wait a week. I'd delete it myself but I am not an Admin. Thanks for your time. -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 20:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wow mate you are way to quick I am just in the middle of doing it. All of the pictures loaded from the silent era were taken in the 1910s BEFORE 1923 fair use so don't delete but they need to be sourced. just bear with me ok Ernst Stavro Blofeld 10:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The same applies to this image as the Pinkcrown.png one. You can go ahead and delete it any time you wish. -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 14:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On October 6, OrphanBot made the following edit: 1. The result was a formatting problem on the resulting version of the article, leaving some extra text at the start of the article (due to left over ]]). Just thought you'd like to know so that you may be able to fix OrphanBot from making the same mistake in the future. Thanks! - Runch 19:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. Could you please get OrphanBot to add __NOGALLERY__ to the categories created in the "Images with no copyright tag" hierarchy. It's much easier to deal with the contents of these categories if this option is enabled. Thanks. --TheParanoidOne 10:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User: Arjun1591 and User:us.apguy has continuosly been uploading photos that have no copyright and no source. Most ridiculously he steals images off Indiaglitz.com which is a private no distributing website. OrphanBot has surprisingly dealt with none of his images. I advice he is warned / blocked and his images are deleted. Please reply at my talk page. Cheers!!! Thamizhan 15:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi yes of course I know about tagging sorry in my haste I forgot to select movie cover license. My image is a dvd cover fair use needed for crtical commentary. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 19:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know how to tag an image, can you provide me with a walkthrough?

Hi, I noticed a couple of peculiar edits by OrphanBot lately. First there is the "Changing nosource template format;" edits, wich seems to just change the tag day for no aparent reason[20][21][22]. Then there seems to be a problem where it will first add the "friendly" {{no copyright holder}} tag, and then come along a couple of days later and add the regular no source tag because "the previous tag was propably substed"[23][24]. I'm guessing it's been thrown off by recent edits to the templates in question. Might want to update the bot and/or the templates to make things work properly again and reiterate the warning not to make template edits that break the bot. --Sherool (talk) 09:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; very odd. I reverted the edits, because I'm pretty sure they're unintentional mistakes; I hope this doesn't mess anything up. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 14:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doubht it, like I said, most likely it's the change to the template that's causing it, as I understand the bot just look at the HTML page not the actual wikicode, and when it fail to recognise the date format it will "update" it (having an extra check there once it's loaded the wikicode anyway might be an idea). Might it be an idea to check the "format" of the actual category link though "Images with unknown source as of [some fancy regex filter ]"? That should still catch most invalid date formats, and not be quite as fickle as relying on a spesific wording on the template text itself, just a thought. --Sherool (talk) 15:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, those edits broke OrphanBot's date-identification code, so it thought the templates had been applied without specifying a date. It then started replacing the "no copyright holder" templates because the template-update code doesn't know about them -- that template is almost always applied by OrphanBot, and the bot always remembers to specify the date. I've updated OrphanBot to fall back to the category names, but this is actually less reliable than the template text: peripheral things like category links are subject to change at the whims of the developers, while I actually have some input into the template text. --Carnildo 19:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any plans to automatically undo the damage? --Abu Badali 19:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted about 3 pages worth of "updating no source template" edits from the bot's contrib list (not sure how many there are overall, but they are not that frequent). The majority of edits seems to be adding the second no source template, wich is not rely a problem as the old no copyright holder tag is still there so those will get killed off by the time it's time to deal with Octoer 10, so while it's currently at 5-ish pages because of all the dupe tags, it will probably be more managable by the time those images are up for deletion. --Sherool (talk) 19:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm worried about cases like this, where the deletion date was postponed. I see dozens of these on my watchlist. --Abu Badali 20:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm about halfway done reverting those. --Carnildo 20:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that and sorry for troubling you! I can see the changes being made on my watchlist. --Abu Badali 20:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm done. The hazards of editing an encyclopedia: sometimes you get distracted and start reading it instead :-) --Carnildo 01:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan bot is not recognising URLs inside templates, like Image:Joshua Lederberg and George Bush.jpg where I had put the URL inside the template. Should it? --Peta 06:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should probably update the bot to check for oddities like that, but it's not a high priority: your example is the first time something like this has come up in the six months the bot has been tagging images. --Carnildo 06:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; I'll just have to remeber to add the source in both places if it come up again.--Peta 06:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya. I believe the image of the Golden Age DD is useable, since I was pretty sure I'd supplied the copyright info by checking the "comic book cover" box and supplying the details given below.(Also, the cateories on this page include "public domain character," though I'm not the one who added that and cannot verify.)

In any case, it's not even a full cover, but a cropped detail from a cover, to illustrate the character in closeup detail, which from my understanding falls under fair use.

Soooo ... here's the info I'd supplied. (Please note that "image reversed" is leftover text from my first attempt at uploading so that the character didn't look off the page; I belatedly realized that that reversed his symmetrical color scheme, and I reuploaded the correct image without removing the words "image reversed." Otherwise, all accurate.)

Cover detail, image reversed, Daredevil Comics #5 (Nov. 1941), art by Charles Biro. (Lev Gleason Pubs., defunct co.)

Source: http://www.comics.org/graphics/covers/235/400/235_4_005.jpg

Thanks! -- Tenebrae 14:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for breaking the template. Can you take a look at the code of User:Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh/No source and see if it's OrphanBot-safe? Thanks!

P.S. The update was after some thinking about this wikien-l post. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 09:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. OrphanBot looks for two things in the "no source" template: the phrase "Unless the copyright status is provided" to identify that it is the correct template, and the date in the format "(dd month yyyy)", using the parentheses to distinguish that date from any other date that might happen to be on the page. If all the templates OrphanBot deals with ({{no source}}, {{no license}}, {{no copyright information}}, {{no copyright holder}}, and {{no rationale}}) are updated to use "<span id="delete-tag-date">", I can update the bot to use that to pick out the date. --Carnildo 06:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What copyright tag would you suggest? My understanding is that official Soviet photos from the period before the Soviet Union joined the International Copyright Convention are not copyright. That's what I wrote under the photo. What else would you have me do? Adam 08:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed)

Which picture are you referring to? I've removed several hundred images, and my bot's removed another 54,000. After a while, it all blurs together. --Carnildo 21:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does the copyright look good now? FoxSportsRadio 21:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does gatesofvienna.blogspot.com really hold the copyright to the image? Who took the picture? --Carnildo 21:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

source was www.ravencues.com

Please note that I am not the original unloader of this image.

No hard feelings :)

--Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 03:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing it to my attention. OrphanBot does its best to figure out who the original uploader is, but sometimes it gets it wrong. --Carnildo 04:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an extremely well-known propaganda photo published by the Soviet Government in 1943. My understanding is that it's in the public domain as a result.

On a different note, this bot of yours causes more problems than it solves, you know. It's systematically tagged almost every WWII era Soviet photo for deletion, which is going to cripple the Soviet Military History aspect of Wikipedia. Reign it in or deactivate the bot! --Commander Zulu 10:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1943 is in a grey area: some WWII photos from then are public domain, while others aren't. For more details, see Template:PD-USSR, Template talk:PD-USSR, and Commons:Template talk:PD-Soviet.

As for the re-tagging, this is because {{PD-USSR}} turns out to be based on a misunderstanding of law. The cutoff date for public domain is either 1942 (for works by WWII vets), or 1946 (for all other works). Consequently, all images using that tag need to be re-tagged or deleted. --Carnildo 20:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi -- you're right that 24.63.167.251 was apparently trying to clean up, but because they did so by hand instead of reverting, some of the cleanup came out nonsensical ("In the 1990s, a rapper made the West Coast gangsta rap.") and so it looked like vandalism. I'll apologize. thanks. bikeable (talk) 17:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I was wondering if you could help me with some issues concerning promotional image allowed in Wikipedia. Regarding promotional images, when you provide the source, does it matter whether they come from a fansite or media sites like Yahoo! TV and not from the official press release site? I've already asked others but I've received two different responses and am very confused. Also, if I downloaded an image of a television character from the official site, say from www.fox.com/*, is it valid for use in Wikipedia even if Fox's terms of use states that they prohibit any reproduction, duplication, distribution etc.? I've read Wikipedia:Fair use but it doesn't really help me much. Your help will be appreciated. Thanks, Ladida 04:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carnildo, I'd appreciate your efforts to improve the performance of your bot, so that he would not label properly tagged images as "unlicensed" and threaten with their deletion within seven days (example1, example2, example3). Imagine how new editors feel when people paste large templates on their talk pages accusing them of uploading illegal material and requiring them to do something on pain of their contributions being deleted, particularly if the thing is not necessary. Annoying, isn't it? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think maybe that is because {{Sovietpd}} automaticaly put the image into Category:Images with unknown copyright status as of unknown date 2006, OrphanBot merely tries to fix the lack of date parameter. Seems like an issue to take up on Template talk:Sovietpd rater than here. Obviously there are some issues with using that tag. --Sherool (talk) 13:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the articles I refer to were also tagged with other licenses. Don't you think that we should approach every image individually, rather than throw them all into one bag? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 13:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well then by all means leave the "ok" license tag and remove the depreciated one along with the no license tag. I was merely trying to point out that it was not OrphanBot's (or Carnildo's) "idea" to dump all those images into a speedy deletion category. That desission seems to have been made at Template talk:PD-USSR#Deleted at Commons, sorry about the previous link, seems the template was redirected but it's talk page was not. --Sherool (talk) 15:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been involved in the discussions of this particular tag, but I recall being told that, when the tag was deprecated, we were assured that no speedy deletions would follow. Therefore I was surprised to find out that all PD-Soviet images have been tagged for deletion by the end of this week. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the Ohio Department of Transportation is not the US Department of Transportation. You may have noticed that the photo was part of a joint project of the two. Rkevins82 19:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many people don't understand the difference, and in any case, the photo Image:Ohiostadium1930.jpg can't possibly be a joint project: the US Department of Transportation was founded in 1967, while the photo was taken in 1930. If the photo was taken by a government employee, then the copyright would most likely be held by the Ohio Department of Transportation. --Carnildo 21:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This probably isn't important, but I thought I'd let you know, anyhow. OrphanBot recently tagged Image:Jacobs field3.jpg as a fair use image without a rationale after another user uploaded a scaled-down version of the image. The original version was uploaded in 2004 when a rationale wasn't required. I've since replaced all instances of the image, so it will be deleted, in any case. Like I said, not terribly important. - EurekaLott 22:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carnildo,

I feel OrphanBot is creating a lot of animosity towards it.

Maybe your bot would be better received if it added a message to the talk page of Wikipedia articles it was deleting images from a day or so before deleting them.

Cedars 13:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a common suggestion. The problem with it is that it would make a great deal of work for the bot, while giving little benefit. --Carnildo 18:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As opposed to simply deleting instead of giving someone a chance to go 'oh hey look, I forgot to put this info in and the page is on my watch list so I'll fix that problem'? Would it really hurt you that much to add a little code? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.37.110.90 (talk • contribs)

The problem I see is that there is an assumption that removing the image from the article is "notifying" people who have that article on their watchlist that there is a problem. However, in my opinion, the only people it notifies are those who are so obsessive-compulsive as to check every edit of every article they watch, or remember every image that was on every article they watch and would notice if one was missing within 7 days of it being removed. I suggest that OrphanBot, instead of simply removing the image from the article, should replace it with a small infobox stating that an image was removed from the article and the image will likely be permanently deleted unless the problem is fixed. Some kind of CSS magic could prevent these infoboxes from showing up on printed versions of the articles, and another bot could clean up these infoboxes if they haven't been removed, say, a month after the image was deleted. DHowell 01:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]