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

Hi - this template has been deleted by TfD, and User:MartinBotIII is currently going through all the uses, removing them (per the normal process). I was wondering, would it be possible for me to provide you with a list of the pages MartinBotIII has edited (mostly removing tags) so that, perhaps, O rphanBot might be able to do a run off the list and tag un-licensed images and notify users? It's not a huge problem if this can't be done, but saves me thinking up a way to do it with AWB (I don't really have enough time to write anotherC' bot (and get it approved!)). Thanks, Martinp23 21:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. One of the easiest things to change about OrphanBot is where it gets the list of images to work on from. --Carnildo 23:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thanks - I'm not sure how you'll need the list to be formatted, and I'll make one if you need it and will send it to you, but as a starting point, (and if you can run off this), the images are all of MartinBotIII (talk · contribs)'s last 3451 edits (as of now - I'll try not to run the bot again util I get a message from you about the plan :)). Thanks for your help with this - 'tis greatly appreciated. Martinp23 23:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to throw all those images into Category:Coat of arms images as well? We probably don't want to lose that info. If not they will probably get re-added slowly/manually. - cohesion 02:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can work off MartinBotIII's edit history. I'll have to do some testing to make sure there have been no changes to MediaWiki in the past six months that have broken that functionality. --Carnildo 09:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphanbot's bothered me again for an image I merely optimised, Image:Diana Spencer coa.png, now untagged due to the above tag deletion. It should have warned the original uploader, Craigy144.--Drat (Talk) 18:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a break? Please consider you and your bot never returning. Your bot is useless for the well documented reasons it fails. 203.57.241.67 01:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)Encise[reply]

My bot doesn't get tired. I do. That's why I'm taking a break, but the bot isn't. --Carnildo 22:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphanbot removed links to Image:Noimage.jpg in a multitude of articles. I've created my own version of the image and uploaded it as public domain. Is there a way to have the bot revert all the changes relative to this file? Thanks. --*Spark* 12:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Carnildo 09:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've uploaded a image to Wikipedia. But I don't know if it have or haven't have copyright. Thanks for you bot that tell me it have copyright, and deleted my image. Sorry for my upload, and thanks for your bot.

Mikelau97 10:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carnildo. This was the first time I have uploaded an image, and I believe it meets all criteria under Wikipedia's rules for fair use. I have provided an expanded rationale on the image description page. If additional information is required, please state specific issues or questions. Regards - Cimm^[talk] 23:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response to my question, I have updated my question. Aaron 12:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hell there i uploded many picture from MSN group Balouch Voice ,i do not know why those images are deleted here beacuse there was no copyright tag on it and that is Group is based on balouch commuinty .many users upload many images there so i dont knw from where they get .

Mir Balach Marri‎; 06:56 . . OrphanBot (Talk | contribs) (Removing image with no source information. Such images that are older than seven days may be deleted at any time.) ?

let me know what to do,bcoz that is group not even site and random user send picture on it.

Orphanbot warned me of possible deletion of some of my images. Can you just delete all of those? I don't want them, besides, they're all not on any pages anyway. --RedPooka 16:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the image linked from the warning I found on the user page. Martinp23 22:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your comment on my talk page, I do not believe this bot is the answer to the unsourced image problem. I think it would be better to manually check and discriminate between these images. Unjustified removal of content hurts Wikipedia by decreasing its completeness. Mrcfjf 21:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are far too many images uploaded without sources for all of them to be checked manually. There are no more than a dozen or so admins actively involved in image work on a daily basis, and that would not be enough to handle the load. The alternative to OrphanBot is eliminating local uploads and shifting all media to Commons. Chick Bowen 22:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your reasoning. Just because admins are unable to deal with these images does not mean legitimate images need to be deleted by an out of control bot. The deletion of legitimate content has become the bane of Wikipedia. Mrcfjf 22:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of Buttboy666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), confirmed by Essjay. Chick Bowen 05:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your bot is a waste of time, this is free encylopedia. Your another person going around on power trip trying to do something that you think is right. The good thing about Wikipedia is that people can edit it and update it with new things. NOT A DUMB A$$ computer or program. That wasn't the purpose. I you keep this up I will talk to the founder. We graduated together in the same class at Auburn University. This kinda crap is what ruins this site. You just go from page to page trying to do as you please. And not all of your removals are correct. I'm sure some are, I know some are I've checked them but I've also look at some that are downright wrong. I highly suggest you cease using this.

I hate Orphanbot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thursdae (talk • contribs) 21:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Play by the rules and you won't come into contact with it then. The JPS^{talk to me} 00:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i do, thanks --Thursdae 04:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded [[Image:NavyNuke.jpg]] and OrphanBot flagged it as unlicensed.

I properly described that I created the image myself using mspaint.exe and stated that I release it to public domain under GFDL. I also selected GFDL-self in the license selection box when I uploaded the file. The image page displays the GFDL banner prominently, and yet OrphanBot still flagged it as innappropriate.

Please correct the bug in your bot. Wikipedia is not the place to test your scripting skills; your bot has created more work for me, and I do not like it. Jerry lavoie 02:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you uploaded the image, you tagged it first as PD-USGov, which doesn't specify the source. You then re-tagged it as GFDL, which again does not specify the source. Both times, the bot correctly identified the image as being unsourced. --Carnildo 22:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, After I uploaded the first image, which was created by the US Navy, and your bot warned me, I replaced the image with one I created myself. Your bot warned me again. In my opinion, the use of bots by wikiadmins to ensure format and content compliance with 'standards' destroys the spirit of 'the encyclopedia that anyone can edit'. A human performing due diligence when reviewing the image I uploaded would have undoubtedly found the answer to "who created the image", by reading the upload comments. I have no respect for the unreasonable use of a computer program to perform a task intended for humans. --Jerry lavoie 22:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How does this bot know if someone has rationale? I put rationale right below the fairusein tag - .. it still busts me for it. It would be nice if the bot's note tells the uploader how and where to add the rationale (so that it recognizes it). Fresheneesz 02:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bot looks for any of about two dozen words and phrases that indicate the uploader has considered Wikipedia's fair use policy. The "rationale" on the image in question doesn't contain any of them, and the image itself does not meet Wikipedia's qualifications for fair use. --Carnildo 22:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which points does it fail - I read through them, and theres none that look particularly violated, except maybe the "smallest picture possible" one. Fresheneesz 00:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most significantly, it fails the "No free equivalent is available or could be created" part of #1. You yourself acknowlege that a replacement could be created: you state that the image should be used "until a free close-up photograph of artificial snow is found". It also fails point #2: we are using it to discuss snow shapes, and the creator is also using it to discuss snow shapes. You've also neglected to identify the copyright holder, but that's a relatively minor violation of #10. --Carnildo 01:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This image [1] was flagged up by orphabot. I'd like to know how it differs from the licence granted to [2] Cheers!StephP 16:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only difference is that Image:Keo_Beer.jpg was uploaded after OrphanBot started checking uploads, while Image:Newcastle_brown_ale_f.jpg was uploaded before. --Carnildo 22:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...and don't ever come back. I've read all these complaints and not in a single case do you address your silly creation's faultiness. We don't need it and we don't want it. Majik43 18:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree, very very many people have responded badly to this bot. Its rationale-finding feature is broken, and you didn't address my question as to how to add rationale that the bot recognizes. Fresheneesz 00:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Help:Image page#Fair use rationale to get an idea of what we are looking for in a fair use rationale, in this case I'd say the bot is right on target "This picture should be used until a free close-up photograph of artificial snow is found." is hardly what I would call a fair use rationale. I realise getting to know all the Wikipedia rules and jargon can be hard and frustrating sometimes, but getting mad at people (and bots as the case may be) that are working to enforce rules you don't fully understand yet doesn't rely help matters. --Sherool (talk) 01:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just saying the bot should be more helpful in telling users *how* to comply with these rules - rather than being vauge about it. Fresheneesz 23:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorcycling member put a Ducati Apollo image up on that article citing fair use. There were only ever two of these bikes made, both now in private collections, and unavailable for public viewing. No-one knew they still existed till one was shown briefly at the Ducati Desmosedici release. There's no free image of it, that I or he can find, but I assume that because no-one can absolutely guarantee that there will never be a free image, that all such images are doomed to deletion. Is that the case? Seasalt 07:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone tried contacting the owners of the two existing models for free-licensed pictures? If they say no, then there's no reasonable method of getting a free-licensed replacement, and the current fair-use image can be used. --Carnildo 00:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found last night that there is only one still existing. The gold one in the image is lost, fate unknown. The surviving black and silver prototype was on display at Ducati's factory museum in Bologna, courtesy of its owner, Hiroaki Iwashita, from 2002 to 2003. It's sole public appearance in recent decades was the 2002 Goodwood Festival of Speed, while on loan to Ducati. "The only surviving Apollo was lent to the Ducati Museum between 2002 and 2003." top right picture caption, at http://www.ducati.com/heritage/news/articolotheapolloisback3;jsessionid=RPLU1TW0KENVUCRNCB2SFEYKFUIHUIV3

I have sent an email to the only Hiroaki Iwashita I could find, and await a response. (The owner is reclusive, so may not be him) I have also sent an email to Ducati. They are the copyright holders of the original gold bike promo image. Seasalt 01:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to get access to the remaining Apollo bike(S). I am unaware that the gold version has disappeared. I have requested from the Ducati Heritage group on several occasions for access to photograph the bike, but have been told repeatedly it was unavailable. In April of 2004, I was informed by Ducati that Iwashita "does not permit public access to the bike anymore due to a dispute regarding the handling of the bike by the shipper that returned it to him in Japan." For all reasonable intents and purposes, the bike no longer exists. Izaakb 14:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC) This is a paste from my talk page.Seasalt 02:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In OrphanBot's message about {{coatofarms}}, it should probably disambiguate the link seal (device). Cheers, BanyanTree 19:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it may want to suggest {{symbol}}, as {{seal}} was not appropriate for the image it notified me about. - BanyanTree 19:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A perfectly good image was sorted out on Wikipedia, in the Hustle article. It was marked for deleton, so I as it happened went to the effort of giving it one and assigning the {{dvdcover}} template. Now maybe I did something wrong, e.g. I forgot to remove the "This image must be deleted" notice, but it is because of your Orphanbot, Carnildo, that an action was taken that an ordinary human would NOT have taken.

Your bot deleted a perfectly fine image from Wikipedia, and there's no real way to get it back once it's been deleted. Frankly what you've done in the creation of an unreliable bot that damages Wikipedia is tantamount to vandalism.

Why don't you f*** off with your stupid bot and let humans perform the necessary changes, as they are perfectly capable of doing? An incompetently programmed script should not be allowed to mess around with the images that Wikipedians have taken the time and trouble to upload.

Chris. --189.148.17.173 01:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning not to insinuate myself into a broader discussion and expressing no view apropos of the substance or tenor of Chris's comments, I should, in view of Carnildo's being on a semi-Wikibreak, observe that, because image undeletion is now possible, the image in question is likely not lost; if you think the deletion undertaken to have been inappropriate (on which, again, I take no opinion), you might surely pursue deletion review. Joe 06:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I received a message from OrphanBot re Image:ROCMP insignia.gif.

I merely edited the image. OrphanBot should notify the original uploader, who should have a better idea of the image's origins.--Jiang 01:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your bot deleted an image I uploaded for not containing source information despite the fact source information had been added. James22567 22:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i noticed orphanbot has been going around various articles on schools and removing the images of the school crest. i understand that those images were probably not specifically tagged, but i find it rather counterproductive that those images have to be reuploaded (i didn't upload the originals), when there would have been zero objections to its use on WP. i know it's important that images should be properly tagged, but as you can tell, orphanbot has made some people feel really frustrated either for the right or wrong reasons. if orphanbot was not a bot but a human editor, i can imagine he/she would be regarded as counterproductive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chensiyuan (talk • contribs) 07:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Carnildo please make your bot hold off its mass removal of heraldic material for a few days. Somebody deleted a license template on WP:TFD without informing WP:HV and without anybody from Heraldry project noticing. This has resulted in tons of unlicensed images. I'm trying to make the user that ran the first bot produce a list of the affected images so WP:HV can assess them and try to straighten it out, but if they are all removed now, it will mean tons of extra work. In particular when it comes to lists of images, many of which only show images that are PD by law. Please give WP:HV a chance to assess and reclassify images first! Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 10:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've turned off OrphanBot's removal of no-license images for a week. A full list of images affected should be at [3] --Carnildo 00:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How on earth could I know who made those pictures? And, I have two pictures here that I made myself.

I'm sorry, I'm just a new user here, I don't know what to put when putting a picture a made myself. Not that I am angry with OrphanBot but, I'm a bit irritated now.

I have a lot of pictures that got deleted. My User page is full with messages from OrphanBot! Well, it's okay. -- NDfan007, 18:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I don't believe what I'm about to ask falls into either the delete or speedy delete catagory, so I decided to direct it towards the owner of Orphan Bot. The following images are ones that I have uploaded, but in my inexperiance, have defied the rules for uploading images, what with copyright and all. I have orphaned the images as needed, so all that is left is for them to be deleted. Sorry for taking the long way round this =\

• Image:Testyourmight1.gif
• Image:Testyourmight2.gif
• Image:Testyourmight3.gif
• Image:Testyourmight4.png
• Image:Dark raiden mkd.JPG

≈ The Haunted Angel ^{(The Forest Whispers My Name)} 19:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was bored so I tagged the last three with {{db-g7}}. --WikiSlasher 00:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. ≈ The Haunted Angel ^{(The Forest Whispers My Name)} 01:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Sorry for causing an edit war at Arabian Gulf, but it truly seemed to me that these maps were apt illustrations with the text. As to your suggestion to Keep it in Persian Gulf naming dispute, that is somewhat impractical. Surely you are aware that each attempt to bring some balance to that article, to present things from a neutral point of view, to tag it with POV-check or POV, or to remove dubious claims or tag them appropriately, all get eventually (and usually promptly) reverted, most of the time with no or specious arguments.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33]

I find it impossible to argue with these people; they use a kind of logic that is unknown to me. If you have any suggestions how to handle this, I'd like to hear them. I must say that I don't want to get deeply embroiled in the topic, which is far removed from what I find interesting.  --Lambiam^Talk 23:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, with the automated notice (see for example User talk:Kevyklam) for images without copyright tags I think it should state that images with no copyright tag may be candidates for people to put them up for deletion. The reason I think this is because people might think, "Meh it's just a bot" and not bother with it. Thanks, --WikiSlasher 03:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If people don't bother to fix their problems, it's not my problem if the images get deleted. --Carnildo 00:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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