User talk:Carnildo

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

Answers to common questions

Why did you delete my image?

The simple answer: I didn't. Someone else did.

The full answer: If you're coming here to ask about an image, it probably was deleted because you forgot to note where you got the image from, or you forgot to indicate the copyright status of the image. See Wikipedia:Image use policy for more information on what you need to do when uploading images.

It says that anyone can copy this image. Why is it being deleted?

The image is not under a free license. There are three things that the image creator needs to permit for an image to be under a free license:

1. They need to permit distribution
2. They need to permit modification and incorporation into other works (the creation of derivative works)
3. They need to permit distribution of derivative works

A permission to copy covers #1, but does not permit #2 (which is what lets Wikipedia use it in an article), and does not permit #3 (which is what permits us to distribute Wikipedia, and what permits people to re-use Wikipedia content).

I got permission to use this image in Wikipedia. Why is it being deleted?

Simple permission is not good enough. The image owner could revoke permission at any time, and the image can't be reused anywhere else: not in Wiktionary, not in Wikibooks, and possibly not in the other languages Wikipedia is available in. It also prevents people from re-using Wikipedia content. Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia, so any image should be under a free license. Simple permission fails all three points of what constitutes a free license.

It says that anyone can use this image for noncommercial purposes. Wikipedia is non-commercial, so that means it's okay, right?

The Wikimedia Foundation, the organization that runs Wikipedia, is registered as a non-profit organization. That doesn't mean it's noncommercial, though: the German Wikipedia, for example, sells copies of the encyclopedia on CD-ROM as a fundraising measure. Further, Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia, so any image should be under a free license. Any license with a "no commercial use" clause fails all three points of what constitutes a free license.

It says that anyone can use this image for educational purposes. Wikipedia is educational, so that means it's okay, right?

Wikipedia articles are intended to educate, yes. But "educational purposes" is a very vague term. The creator of the image could mean that they only want the image to be used by universities and the like, or they might object to Wikipedia's coverage of popular culture. It's best to stay away from images with such vague terms.

Further, Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia, so any image should be under a free license. Any license with an "educational use only" clause fails all three points of what constitutes a free license.

The web page I found this image on doesn't say anything about copyright. That means it's free to use, right?

Wrong. In the United States, under the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988, every tangible work of creative effort created after March 1, 1989 is automatically copyrighted. Including a copyright statement gives you a stronger position if you file a copyright infringement lawsuit, and you need to register your copyright with the Library of Congress to file the lawsuit, but neither step is needed to get a copyright in the first place.

I found this image on the Internet. Anyone can see it, so that means it's in the public domain, right?

Wrong. Anyone can see a book in a public library, or a painting in an art gallery, but that doesn't mean those are in the public domain. The Internet is no different.

The image was created 50 years ago. It can't possibly still be copyrighted, can it?

Wrong. In the United States, copyright lasts a very long time. As a rule of thumb, everything published in 1930 or later is copyrighted.

Random thoughts on a new feature

Hi. First off, top work from the bot, it certainly saves a lot of time. However, there are still a lot of images that appear to be tagged correctly, but that are copyvios. They sit there for a week with the copyvio template, and then it falls to admin to orphan the image and then delete it - removing the links to the images can take a very long time, and the backlog at [{WP:CP]] is very hard to keep under control. Can you think of a relatively easy way of automating the orphaning? One thought would be to create a category into which images which admins are about to deleted could be placed for orphanbot to orphan. That may need an extra check by the bot to make sure it's genuine - maybe that it was placed there by a specified user. There may be other ways to automate the process. Any thoughts? Kcordina ^Talk 08:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

How about listing the images on a protected page? That way, only admins can nominate images for orphaning. Or you could go with the category idea, and not worry about abusive listings -- the bot keeps a log of every page it's removed an image from, so undoing removals is fairly easy. --Carnildo 20:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

A protected page sounds like a good idea. Personally, I would be happy with it being an open listing, but suspect more paranoid members of the community would focus on the potential for abuse, rather than the actual positives such a system would bring.

So, if we created a page like User_talk:Kcordina/Orphanbot_holding_pen OrphanBot could patrol the list and remove any links? I guess it would be helpful if it also indicated in the list when it had done so to show the image can be deleted. Kcordina ^Talk 08:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

OrphanBot can no more edit protected pages than any other non-admin can. What the bot could do is create a separate listing of images it's taken care of. --Carnildo 06:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

A seperate page seems entirely sensible and just as good as removing the list it gets its input from. Kcordina ^Talk 08:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Call off the bot

I provided a rationale for Image:Mark Falcoff.JPG, and the bot keeps reposting the message. There is no indication given of what specifically is wrong. Also, please take me off the notify list. --TJive 08:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

You've been added to the "do not notify" list. --Carnildo 18:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

That's just a stupid picture.

I made it. I wanted to put it on my userpage.

Dear Carnildo!

Your bot has removed about 12 pictures from the 'Budapest' page where I have been uploading to for a fairly long time. Allegedly, the reason was the lack of copyrights. I believe I have provided sufficient information as I always provided wikipedia.org with the source of the file and the creator of the file if it was possible. I would like to ask you, if possible, to restore the page to what it was like July, 2, 2006 (around 12:00 am).

Sincerely, Dome

Who are you and what images are you talking about? The ones I checked were pretty clear copyright violations, or had no source information whatsoever. --Carnildo 18:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Bounty?

Always such a pleasure to visit your talkpage. Anyway, didn't you have a bounty up for writing FAs that use only freely-licensed media? Jkelly 22:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I did. It expired on December 31, and I decided not to renew it. --Carnildo 18:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh well. Jkelly 22:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Image backlogs

Hello. Do you think it would be possible for OrphanBot to go around all of the image backlogs (no source, no tag, no fair use rationale) and remove all of the images from the categories that they are in? It would be much easier for admins to go around and quickly delete them from there, rather than having the go to the article and remove it there, which is just a waste of time when a bot can do it! I have also put up a notice on WP:BOTREQ#Bot requested for image backlogs; you might wish to comment on the matter. Thanks and regards, Iolakana|^T 13:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The bot usually does this. There are certain situations it can't handle, such as images in templates or some infoboxes, but it should be removing around 90% of images from articles. It doesn't deal with the no-rationale categories -- there are usually only a half-dozen images in each day's category, and I don't know if it would be appropriate for the bot to deal with untagged images -- 99% of those images were tagged by the bot in the first place. --Carnildo 18:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Images

I have recently loaded some images on. I have been todl that they should not be on there and i agree. Would it be possible for you to delete ALL my images and if you can can you let me know how? Vanessabu. Thanks.

References on Homeland Security Advisory System

I deleted the refrences because they were now defunct, and led to 404 pages, but you reverted. Is that how it should be? Just asking. Thursday Postal 15:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. It's basic academic honesty to let people know where the information came from, so citations of web pages should be kept even if the page itself is missing. Among other things, there's a good chance that the page can still be found at the Internet Archive, or for online news articles, in the paper's print archives. --Carnildo 18:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, alright. Thanks. Thursday Postal 17:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Ucrsorority.jpg misrepresented as GNU-licenced

The image is actually a publicity photo owed by the university, as are most of the other photos on the University of California, Riverside article. Some time ago I nominated these photos for deletion, but only this one was ever removed. User Insert-Belltower has since re-uploaded it. The origonal internet source of the image is located here: [1]--Amerique 22:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Orphanbot on images tagged by Bogdangiusca

Please stop running Orphanbot on images tagged by Bogdangiusca, he does not follow the proper procedure and doesn't notify the uploader, thus putting images to be deletion without any chance for it to be fixed. PPGMD 03:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

If he hasn't notified the uploader, then the bot should do it for him. --Carnildo 18:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Your bot doesn't seem to be doing it either. PPGMD 21:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

That's because the developers changed the format of the upload history recently, and I haven't had time to find the change and work around it. --Carnildo 00:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

So now images are being tagged, removed from articles and deleted without any notification. PPGMD 14:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Occasionally, yes, but that's always been the case. OrphanBot doesn't notify someone about more than one image a day, and doesn't notify if there's already a link to the image, under the assumption that that link is from someone else's notification.

Honestly, I'm not sure I want to fix notification. In the week since the upload history format changed, I've had fewer complaints than normal. --Carnildo 19:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice work

Nice work with OrphanBot. It seems to keep Wikipedia a lot "freer" - it wouldn't be good to be the "The Copyviolating Encylcopedia", but also it's just good practice to include details like original creator and source even for now-P.D. images (especially since these details actually determine whether the P.D. claim is any good!) and to give details like date and location when uploading self-taken photographs. The summary at the top of your talk page is excellent, I shall be directing people towards it in future. I also noticed that the "baby Hitler" photo that your bot got attacked with lacks any source information (so there's no way to verify if it really is 70 years p.m.a.) so I nsd'd it at Commons. :-)

What I wondered if you might consider is using OrphanBot to leave a note on article talk pages, before removing them from the article. Since this would notify those who have watchlisted the article before it is "damaged" (as people seem to call it), it might reduce the heat and surprise factors a little. I don't know how feasible this is given the way you operate but it might cut down the flak a little. TheGrappler 01:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

My concern is that it won't have a very good cost-benefit ratio. Adding a notice to the article talk page will take OrphanBot an additional two to three hours a day, and I suspect it will just lead to tens of thousands of article talk pages containing nothing but floods of image deletion notices, just like there are tens of thousands of user talk pages with nothing but deletion notices. --Carnildo 18:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Good points. I can understand the time issue. (As for talk page flooding - you could make a null edit to the page with a warning as the edit summary, I suppose, though that has obvious disadvantages.) I wonder if it's something you might want to trial just to see what kind of benefits it brings - if there is big increase in requests actually getting dealt with, that might make the costs worthwhile. TheGrappler 13:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Moved images from Ashdod Port topic

Hi. You've removed images from topic. The lisencing there probably was incorrect, since it was one of my first topics. I'll restore those images with actual licensing. Thank You. Shmuliko 05:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Bill of Rights

Thank you for reinforcing how much twaddle is made in Wikipedia every day, it was very frustrating trying to explain how much needs to be deleted rather than improved on. JRA WestyQld2 01:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

At least for article twaddle, there are procedures for dealing with it. I'm working on image uploads right now, and there are about a thousand "I found this picture on the web and thought it would look good in my article" uploads a day, and no easy way to deal with them. --Carnildo 18:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Oprah Winfrey

Carnildo, I wonder if you might look at a fair use image debate on this article. Some newbies refuse to accept that culling too many fair use images is a positive move in light of other articles being equally bad in this regard. Thanks for your time. Harro5 06:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

What is cellspacing?

I know it probably seems a very stupid question but there a few things I need help with. FIrstly, I need to make some templates for the project (WP:NOIDASCHOOLS) I am going to start soon but I have never tried making one myself. Since I want to make them myself, I just opened the editing option of one of the templates {{Big Brother project}} to see how its done. One of the things they have specified there is cellspacing and I have no idea what this is , atleast in the wikipedia jargon and I guess otherwise also. I hope you can help me with it.

Unitedroad 10:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long to reply. Cellspacing is an HTML property that indicates the distance between sections of a table -- basically, the thickness of the dividing lines. --Carnildo 18:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Ading copyright tags

Hey. Orphanbot recently added a tag to Image:Slikksteev.gif. I don't have a problem with that, I just was wondering if it's possible to change the tag attached to avoid it getting deleted. Normy132 11:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Assuming it's permissible to use the image on Wikipedia, you need to edit the image description page to provide the source of the image (who created it and who holds the copyright), and indicate what free license it's under (or if it's unlicensed, which is probably the case, it needs to meet the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use criteria). You also need to provide the correct copyright tag: Wikipedia:Image copyright tags has a list of tags in current use.

To edit the image description page of an image, click on the image and select "edit this page". You can then edit the page just like any other. Be sure to remove the {{untagged}} template when you're finished. --Carnildo 20:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Help with images

Carnildo, I am truly sorry I came on so harsh towards on my talkpage. Would you please help me with properly uploading and tagging images so they won't get deleted? For instance, a screenshot of Bart Sibrel that was wrongfully removed recently. Thank you. GeorgeC 19:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

pharaoh djer pic

yeah, so sorry about that. completely forgot. i just put the tag. HoneyBee 06:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a picture of my webpage. What do I need to do?

The Panzerschreck picture

"I don't believe this is an inartistic photograph"

No offense, but your way of thinking is a bit odd in my opinion. I don't know the picture's exact origins (I have told everything I know at its page), but the fact remains that the picture is in the public domain because the Finnish Copyright law of 2005 specifies that images not considered to be works of art become public domain 50 years after they were created, and the picture was taken in 1944. Kurt.

What does Finnish law consider to be a "work of art"? Under US law, that picture certainly qualifies as a "work of art": there's creative effort in choice of photographic angles and choice of subject, and if it's a posed photo rather than someone tagging along with a military unit, there's a choice of lighting and pose of the subjects. --Carnildo 22:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

"What does Finnish law consider to be a "work of art"?" See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing#Finland. Kurt.

Looks to me like it probably qualifies as a work of art, then. And it still doesn't have source. --Carnildo 03:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

"Looks to me like it probably qualifies as a work of art," Notice this. "According to the "(legally not binding) opinion" of the Finnish Copyright Council...". And you cannot prove that the picture was posed. Kurt.

So because I can't prove that the image is still copyrighted, it's in the public domain? That's not how things work around here. I've listed the image for deletion. --Carnildo 18:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

"it's in the public domain" Yes, according to Finnish laws. How can you tell if the picture was posed or such? You can't. Even if you could it would irrelevant, because the opinion of the Finnish Copyright Council is legally not binding. The person who sent the picture to me is Chinese and he said that he scanned it from some Chinese history book. Kurt.

pictures of the Salginatobel bridge

Hello, the pictures which I had uploaded were made by me. Please put them back there. I publish them under the GFDL. Regards, Matthai

Which pictures are these? --Carnildo 03:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

This is claude kagan, globotype I had a confustion getting my first picture for the article. the Original contrib image saved was : 15:54, 11 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Image:Globo2.jpg (David Mc Callum, deceased 1890 Bookjlet published in 1856, The Globotype Telegraph Template:1.2.5) I lost it trying to correct spelling of booklet and got the second version that did not have the stuff. I dont know how tomove that picture in place in lieu of the offendidng one. Thanks

Your bot seems to be mis-tagging. Pls see my talk page. Carfiend 20:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Your bot seems to be mis-tagging. Pls see my talk page. Carfiend 20:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The bot is working just fine. When you uploaded the image, you didn't include the {{GFDL}} tag, so the bot informed you of that fact. --Carnildo 21:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Python

Where/how did you learn Python? Please respond on my page, thank you. GangstaEB (sliding logs~dive logs) 21:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't say exactly how I learned it. When you know as many programming languages as I do (20+), picking up a new language is easy -- mostly a matter of finding a reference for the language's standard library, so you know how to get the language to do things more complex than simple math and logic. --Carnildo 19:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Orphaning request

Hi. I have just deleted a huge swath of images, which are listed here. Would you be able to set orphanbot to orphan them? Each is only used once, but there is a long list of them... Cheers. Kcordina ^Talk 13:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. Redlinked images are harder to work with than existing images, as "what links here" doesn't always give the same information as the "file links" section of an image description page. --Carnildo 19:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Karina_venezuela.jpg deleted

Why was it deleted? I took it legally from a site and added its copyright. The album has not being published in my country so I cannot scan it or get it :-( --JewBask 17:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Image

The image I uploaded gopalshankar98veena.jpg has been removed. I think I clarified that the image was from the personal collection of the artiste and can be used on wikipedia. Please replace it on the page.

Notification- email sent you

Please check your email. If there is someone else that should be consulted, please feel free to direct them to here as an email substitute. Thanks // FrankB 03:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

What would be the best image tag for

File:G-Unit.JPG

Is there any appropriate tag for the image I uploaded back in October. It is an established image for many other websites and I had obtained it from G-UnitWorld (website). If there's anything else I could do for this image? Thanks. LILVOKA 22:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't tell you the best tag without knowing the real source and copyright holder for the image. --Carnildo 18:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Slum Village - "Climax" Image

The following image

File:Slim village - climax video.jpg

, is self-made. I sourced it as a music promo screenshot yet it was still put up for deletion. This has occured numerous times with several other images that I've sourced, hence the reason why I decided to create this one myself. Please see to it that no more of my sourced images are put up for deletion. In the meantime, I'm replacing it back into the article which I made it for. Thank you, Majik43.

Matrix Schemes

Carnildo,

Could you take a look at the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrix_scheme POV debate. It appears that the mediation has gone nowhere, the mediator dissapeared, and the debate has deteriorated. You have played a part in this discussion before, perhaps you could lend your hand again.

Thanks,

Arzel 23:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

OrphanBot templates

Hello, Carnildo. I just edited User:OrphanBot/nosource and User:OrphanBot/norat to remove links from section headings, in accordance with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings)#Linking. I would also have edited User:OrphanBot/source, but that one's protected. I made these edits on the assumption that OrphanBot just inserts something like {{subst:User:OrphanBot/appropriatetemplate}} into talk pages, and doesn't actually need the section headings to be worded just right in order to find its way around later. Please let me know if I overstepped my bounds. —Bkell (talk) 14:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. The bot keeps its own record of who has been given what warnings about which images, so it doesn't rely on any particular wording of the templates. The protected template isn't currently in use. --Carnildo 18:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" -OrphanBot

Sorry, wiz, I know it's you. Could you please shut this bot off, because nobody knows how to source an article anymore. If not, could you show us HOW to source it? Thanks (the preceding was not meant to be a personal attack)! Tom Danson 17:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing an image is pretty simple: you just need to edit the image description page to indicate who the copyright holder is, and where you got the image from. The bot has nothing to do with sourcing articles. --Carnildo 18:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Aircraft safety card

In the aircraft safety card article, there is a new scanned picture of an actual Qantas card, with a "public domain" tag. Is the use of that image acceptable? AirOdyssey 02:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Logos

I seen that the OrphanBot tags logos, lacking source info, for deletion. However, when a image is tagged as {logo}, which is a fair use allowed on wiki, wouldn't it be taken from granted that the image originated from the organization to which it belongs (regardless whether it was found on the web or scanned from paper)? --Soman 10:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, you deleted two Stephenie LaGrossap ictures, that were clearly labelled where they were sourced (cbs.com)

Sir John A. MacDonald image

It appears that your bot, is prepaing to delete Image:Johnamacdonald1870.jpg because there is no source information? I would appreciate it, if you would follow normal practice, and have left me a message at that time, rather than simply tagging the image, where few would notice it.

I must confess I'm not clear, nor have I found information, on how one is supposed to source an image. Given that that the photograph is clearly well over 100 years old, and obviously outside of copyright, I marked it as such originally, and thought that would suffice. Can you point me towards information on how source data should be presented, and I will gladly do so? Nfitz 14:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)