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 June 30 to December 1 December 1, 2006 to January 6, 2007 January 6, 2007 to July 19, 2007 July 20, 2007 to May 28, 2009 May 29, 2009 to January 11, 2012 January 12, 2012 to October 8, 2013

Hi. The file LambdaOrionisRing.jpg was removed from article Sh2-264. Although it had the appropriate copyright tag (in my view). It was copied from the Italian version of the article, where it was stated that wikisky had licensed it for use within Wikipedia. My mistake probably (but which?). Thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by CMBhuman (talk • contribs) 08:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fastily deleted it because it was licensed for use only in Wikipedia. Images in Wikipedia need to either be licensed under a free-content license or usable under the non-free content policy. --Carnildo (talk) 01:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia administrators, Copyrights for this image are held by Concetta Antico and with this email she gives permission for use of File:Concetta headshot.jpg on wiki page Concetta Antico. URL for image is

ConcettaAntico.com 

I make the wiki edit to reinstate use of the file on the wiki page by request of Concetta Antico. I send this email by request,giving permission for use of the image by the copyrights holder.

Neither Use of this image , nor reinstatement of it on the wiki constitute a conflict as I have no financial or legal ties to the page or its contents. I will continue my right to edit the page for inaccuracies and omissions.

I submit this email per request of Concetta Antico as a personal favor. 

KAJameson (talk) 23:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Nice bot for identify the missing license tag. Good luck. FlourishDNA (talk) 13:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When removing an image can you include who deleted the file? Werieth (talk) 20:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Have added a copyright tag for this image - I need to be careful to follow protocols - how do I delete the instructions to delete the image? User:Parsonsc1 (talk) 9:29, 23 December 2014

Hello, could you chime in at "Bot edit war" over at WP:BON? One of the bots in question is ImageRemovalBot; I've asked about a change to its instructions, although I'm nowhere near confident that this would be the right course, since it may be working perfectly fine here. Nyttend (talk) 22:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Since the 7 July 2014 the bot appears to be having issues and logging mostly warnings and not removing files. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 18:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Bot has been un-stuck and should now be working properly. --Carnildo (talk) 21:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive265#Move War at History of the Jews in Nepal, and RFC review that concerns you because you were recently involved with one or more of the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the Jews in Nepal, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 June 30 (History of the Jews in Nepal), Talk:History of the Jews in Nepal#RfC: Should we change article name to 'Judaism in Nepal'?. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are being notified because you have participated in previous discussions on the same topic. Alsee (talk) 16:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have participated in at least one Requested Move or Move Review discussion, either as participant or closer, regarding the title of the article currently at Sarah Jane Brown, you are being notified that there is another discussion about that going on now, at Talk:Sarah Jane Brown#Requested move #10. We hope we can finally achieve consensus among all participating about which title best meets policy and guidelines, and is not too objectionable. --В²C ☎ 17:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template_talk:Succession_box#RfC has a discussion on succession box usage. You had previously noted or opined at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 April 6#Template:NYRepresentatives thanks. Kraxler (talk) 17:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-nominated Trinity (nuclear test) as a Featured Article Candidate. As you participated in the previous nomination as a reviewer, I thought you might want to check that all the points that you made have been addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Carnildo.

My name is Rick Jensen. I was doing some reading and research into the United States' first ironclads when I discovered your article on the Talk page of the CSS Virginia web page.

I would like to add the start and finish dates for the completion of the reconstruction from the USS Merrimack into the CSS Virginia to the article's web page. However, I do not know where you found your information for your article. So, I am reluctant to change the current page without being able to cite a reference for the dates.

Any assistance that you could give me would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Rick J. Portland, Oregon <03-FEB-2015> Jensenr629 (talk) 02:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

Any chance you could set up some form of automatic archiving on the bot's talk page - it is really too long to navigate. If not, I may consider doing so, as it is far too long for me to read through to find if my issue has been reported (Tagging files with a valid non-free use rational with missing data). Thanks, Mdann52 (talk) 10:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The bot tagged (twice) a file I uploaded (a college crest) as having no licensing data, although I have given it a Non-free use rationale logo template for its licensing. Is there a bug with the bot or did I do somoething wrong? Hansi667 (Neighbor Of The Beast) ^{a penny for your thoughts?} 13:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hansi667: this edit fixed it. You should include a general "copyrighted" tag as well now. Mdann52 (talk) 17:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The {{Non-free use rationale}} family of templates aren't considered copyright tags. You need to include a suitable template from Wikipedia:File copyright tags/Non-free as well. --Carnildo (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I am contacting you because you are mentioned in an article I am writing. I have sent you an email about it. As the article is likely to garner a great deal of attention, please can you give the email your most urgent attention? Vordrak (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just noticed a lot more images than normal building up in Category:Articles with missing files and check the bots logs and its showing "Logging warning message" > "*Previous run is taking longer than normal" - looks like it may need a kick. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 20:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bot has been kicked. It should catch up over the course of the day. --Carnildo (talk) 21:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 22:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you removed the two images that you did, one that pictured the first Skaggs-Safeway name and its first president, MB Skaggs, and one of a picture of both MB and his wife. I received written permission to use both of those images without restriction so, unless I failed to tag the images correctly, they SHOULDN'T have been deleted. The first one is the ONLY image showing that Safeway Stores began as Skaggs-Safeway, a very important point in the history! I can't now find the images because you have deleted them. Please tell me why! Thanks, Don Nielson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Nielson (talk • contribs) 21:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am a WP:BAG member. FairuseBot seems to have stopped editing since 2011. Why is that? -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A bug in how MediaWiki handles image redirects caused the bot to stop working properly, and I haven't gotten around to fixing it. --Carnildo (talk) 19:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that the redirect is useful? Xx236 (talk) 07:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because that's what I typed in to my browser's search bar to try to find the article. --Carnildo (talk) 08:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was amused (albeit also concerned) to see ImageTaggingBot put {{untagged}} on this, when there is a declaration of CC-BY-SA 2.0 two lines above it. I copy and pasted the copyright status into the wizard from the original file on Commons (this is a crop of the original for a close-up in an article). I assume the bot isn't designed to parse text in this manner? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, the bot can't parse free-form text. {{untagged}} used to be a template that indicated just that -- "none of the templates on this page is a copyright tag, but there's some free-form text that I think might be a license" -- but about three years ago someone decided to merge it with {{di-no license}}. --Carnildo (talk) 23:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in some cases your bot hides images with the message "Deleted image removed:", any special reason why they are not outright deleted from the articles? TherasTaneel (talk) 21:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many, many years ago, when the bot was first approved, consensus was that it should comment the images out rather than deleting them entirely. There have been a few efforts to change that since then, but none has managed to gain consensus. --Carnildo (talk) 00:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, just come across a lot of images deleted today that didn't get removed by ImageRemovalBot - checked it's contribs and it's not done anything since yesterday morning. Just thought I'd let you know. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 19:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Power outage took down the computer running the bot. I'm taking the opportunity to do some hardware maintenance, and the bot should be up and working its way through the backlog by tomorrow. --Carnildo (talk) 23:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 19:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are being contacted because you contributed to a recent discussion of MOS:IDENTITY that closed with the recommendation that Wikipedia's policy on transgender individuals be revisited.

Two threads have been opened at the Village Pump:Policy. The first addresses how the Manual of Style should instruct editors to refer to transgender people in articles about themselves (which name, which pronoun, etc.). The second addresses how to instruct editors to refer to transgender people when they are mentioned in passing in other articles. Your participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I must be going crazy. What's going on here? — Earwig ^talk 10:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing on that image description page that the bot recognizes as a source. You should provide either a "source" or "owner" parameter for {{Non-free use rationale title-card}}. The bot doesn't consider the default value to be acceptable source information, because it usually isn't. --Carnildo (talk) 20:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the owner, that's what I was forgetting. Thanks, fixed now. I'm a little frustrated since {{Non-free use rationale title-card}} doesn't have any documentation and the template wasn't indicating there was a missing field. Cheers. — Earwig ^talk 00:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In case you're interested, we're discussing your 100 random article analysis here in the Wikipedia Weekly Facebook group. Cool stuff. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Carnildo. You tagged an image for deletion, but you did not notify the uploader that it had been so tagged. There is strong consensus that the uploaders of images tagged for deletion should be notified and that the person placing the tag has that responsibility. Part 3 of the instructions at FfD contain a pre-formatted warning for this purpose—just copy and paste to the uploader's talk page. The image in question was discussed here. Thank you. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  23:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see you created File:Continental_models-Australia.gif by modifying the text of a similar graphic. I would like to use a variation of this on the Maori wikipedia but with the text translated. I know little about graphics and have never tried to edit an animated GIF, and there doesn't appear to be a regular editor on mi with such skills.

If you don't have time or inclination to help, I entirely understand. This is not urgent. I can ask at Commons:Graphic Lab if you can't do it.

The changes I would like are:

• The text "7 continents", "6 continents" etc should read "7 paparahi" etc.
• The continent names are "Amerika" (America), "Ūropi" (Europe), "Āwherika" (Africa), "Āhia" (Asia), "Tiri o Te Moana" (Antarctica), "Ao-o-Kiwa" (Oceania, which we would prefer to Australia), "Amerika ki te Raki" (North America), "Amerika ki te Tonga" (South America), "Eurāhia" (Eurasia) and "Āwhe-Eurāhia" (Africa-Eurasia).

The parts in brackets are for your understanding, not to be included in the image. The macrons (lines above some vowels) are important.

Please upload the new version to Commons:File:Continental models mi.gif as the Maori Wikipedia has a policy of not storing image files itself.

If you are interested in the discussion which prompted this request, you can see it at mi:Talk:Paparahi.

Thanks in advance.-gadfium 01:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, ImageRemovalBot did quite a number on Situation awareness by removing image "links" within {{Plain image with caption}} templates. Perhaps you could program the bot to remove the entire template in those cases, instead of leaving a bunch of stray syntax behind. Thanks. – voidxor 23:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into it. --Carnildo (talk) 22:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assalam O Alaikum

  Respected Sir, An Administrator Block Me From Editing Pages Please Can You Help Me In Unblocking? H.R.H Prince Muhammad Zahid Zadran 08:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by M-Zahid-Zadran (talk • contribs)   

Hi, this diff removed an image from the bath bomb page after it had been migrated to Commons. Is this intentional behaviour? If you're running the bot without supervision, it could detract from a number of articles in the same situation. Cheers, Brammers (talk/c) 12:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the image was renamed in the process of moving it to Commons -- the bot cannot magically divine that File:Bath bombs.jpg and File:Lush bath bombs.jpg are the same image, particularly after the former has been deleted. It's the job of the user doing the migration to update the links. --Carnildo (talk) 02:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Is the source code of the bot somehow available? Or is it possible to run it in other wikipedias?

Some time before I operated a bot in ru.wikipedia that deleted image transclusions in the articles and the bot was based on CommonsDelinker system. But now everything changed and framework stopped working - as a result we have ~3k of deleted but not unlinked files: ru:Категория:Статьи со ссылками на отсутствующие файлы. So, is it somehow possible to use your bot in ru.wiki? Rubin16 (talk) 14:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The source code is available at User:ImageRemovalBot/removebot.pl; you'll also need the support libraries at User:FairuseBot/Pearle.pm, User:FairuseBot/Pearle/WikiPage.pm, and User:FairuseBot/libBot.pm. If you have any questions, leave me a message. --Carnildo (talk) 04:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a cropped (by me) detail from an existing Wikipedia file, as you can verify by comparing it with the larger Wikipedia file: William Brennan color.jpg - Please revert your delete. PraeceptorIP (talk) 17:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What image are you referring to? ImageRemovalBot has handled hundreds of thousands of images over the course of the past decade. --Carnildo (talk) 01:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The image is File:William Brennan color.jpg

PraeceptorIP (talk) 01:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That file quite clearly still exists. Which is the deleted image? --Carnildo (talk) 02:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your bot deleted the detail of that file that I had made and put in Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul#Majority opinion. The detail showed Brennan's head and shoulders without the rest of the body. PraeceptorIP (talk) 15:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing you're talking about File:Justice William J. Brennan - detail 1976.jpg. In that case, it was deleted by User:Explicit for lacking source information, and the bot merely removed the link to it from the article. Your best bet is to talk to Explicit about the deletion. --Carnildo (talk) 20:27, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your bot posted a warning about missing source and copyright information to this talk page but forgot to include the file name. Any idea why? If it was about File:F.e. image=DETECTIVE.pdf and if you used some template with an unnamed (numbered) parameter, then note that you need to need to include the number when the file name contains an = sign. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I've fixed the bot. --Carnildo (talk) 00:04, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems there is a bug with ImageTaggingBot since it tagged File:Maria Labo poster.jpg as without any sources twice while there is really a source given for the image (which is VIVA Film through IMDb)Hariboneagle927 (talk) 12:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd finally seen the last of that damned navbox. Guess not.

The problem is that the source information is not in a computer-readable format. It's hidden inside a {{navbox}} template, which ImageTaggingBot quite reasonably ignores as being irrelevant to understanding the image description page. If you want the bot to stop tagging the page, use a machine-readable template such as {{non-free media data}} or {{non-free use rationale}}. --Carnildo (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Carnildo. ImageRemovalBot removed a link to File:Blanshard.gif on the 18th, a few hours after it was nominated for speedy deletion. However, I declined the speedy deletion a few days later so it could be discussed and the file was never actually deleted (yet?). Shouldn't the bot wait until the file is deleted rather than nominated? Fences&Windows 20:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) The file was deleted by one admin on 18 May and then undeleted by another admin on 19 May. You later removed the CSD template on 22 May. The file was removed from the article shortly after its deletion on 18 May, so the bot does not seem to have made any error. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, I had missed that and in two discussions nobody mentioned it! Thanks. So much fuss over one old photo. Fences&Windows 20:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not possible for the bot to remove an image before it's deleted: the bot gets its worklist off the deletion log. --Carnildo (talk) 01:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi , i see u control a bot. If possible can u programme a bot for me since i dont know programmming. The bot can inform uploaders that their data needs citation Please I'd be very grateful if u help me thanks and Regards -VarunFEB2003 (talk) 08:45, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carnildo,

I did a TinEye search on the falls photo at: Imprezzio About Page and was directed to your Wikimedia upload Upper Spokane Falls.

I was considering applying for a job that's open at this company but, if they're using Wiki work on their company website, I'm not interested in dealing with the type of corporate culture that's OK with that kind of BS......

Long story short: are you in someway connected with this company/website: is this a kosher use of your work or are they pulling something skeezy?

Thank you, Brian

Mad Bunny (talk) 02:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've got no connection to the company or their website. If they can't even manage to follow a simple "give credit to the photographer" license, you're probably well-served to stay away from them. --Carnildo (talk) 06:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So what licence do I add for this image, File:Lydia Ko - 27067658976 A.jpg, which is simply an improved version of an existing image with full licence details? Buggered if I can see what licence to use. Moriori (talk) 03:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since the original is licensed {{cc-by-sa-2.0}}, that's the license you need to use on your derivative as well. The license also requires you to acknowledge the original author (Flickr user Keith Allison). --Carnildo (talk) 10:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. Just replace my improved version with the inferior version. Moriori (talk) 21:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The ImageTaggingBot tagged this as no source. While technically true, a FUR does not require a source per the template. The template automatically fills in the source field with "The poster art can or could be obtained from the distributor." if it is not included. I went back and added a link but it seems a little unnecessary to tag an image for deletion when the template autofills in that information in compliance with non-free use requirements. --Majora (talk) 22:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Can be obtained from the distributor" is rather vague, which is why the bot doesn't consider it a source -- if you're going to go with the default there, you really should specify who the distributor is. Ideally, both the "owner" and "source" fields would be filled out, so we have a record of both who the copyright owner is and where the image came from, but the bot will accept a template where any of "owner", "source", "publisher", "distributor", or "website" fields is used. --Carnildo (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carnildo is ImageRemovalBot down? I notice a few more files than normal building up in Category:Articles with missing files that it would normally have removed and I notice it hasn't edited for about a day now. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 13:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bot has been poked and should work its way through the backlog in the next few hours. --Carnildo (talk) 20:37, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Cheers Carnildo KylieTastic (talk) 20:39, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cc-by-sa-2.0-be has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:31, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Carnildo. We currently show that you are the operator on file for at least one bot account that appears to be inactive. Please see the discussion and list of bots here: Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard#Inactive bots over 5 years. If you are no longer operating your bot, no action is required - your bot will be marked as retired and have the bot flag removed. Should your bot be retired and you wish to revive it in the future, please request bot authorization at WP:BRFA. If you are still in control of your bot (including knowing its hopefully strong password) and wish to maintain the bot flag, please sign the table on the linked discussion. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 14:42, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

There is an ongoing discussion about the use of files on Wikipedia that are not protected by copyright in the US because there is no copyright relations between the US and the country of publication. You commented in a 2012 discussion on the same topic that resulted in no consensus. You are invited to share your views in the ongoing discussion. AHeneen (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, could you please explain [1]? I converted this incorrectly marked free file into a non-free file with {{Non-free use rationale poster}}, which pre-fills a source, yet the bot tagged it with the DI version of no source. — Train2104 (t • c) 16:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I should probably add this to a FAQ or something. Basically, "Can be obtained from the distributor" is rather vague, which is why the bot doesn't consider it a source -- if you're going to go with the default there, you really should specify who the distributor is. Ideally, both the "owner" and "source" fields would be filled out, so we have a record of both who the copyright owner is and where the image came from, but the bot will accept a template where any of "owner", "source", "publisher", "distributor", or "website" fields is used. --Carnildo (talk) 02:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. It might not be a bad idea to start a discussion somewhere more visible about the various non-free rationale templates that do that (logo, etc). — Train2104 (t • c) 03:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it appears ImageRemovalBot has stopped working. I noticed a build up at Category:Articles with missing files and checked its contributions page and it not removing any images and logging "Previous run is taking longer than normal". Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 11:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The server the bot was on had intermittent network connectivity problems last night. The bot is designed to wait increasingly long periods between edits when it encounters an error; as a result, it was waiting 12 hours between attempts. I've restarted the bot and it should work through the backlog over the next few hours. I've also modified the bot to cap the wait at half an hour. --Carnildo (talk) 19:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Carnildo — KylieTastic (talk) 21:55, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Carnildo it appears that didn't fix the issue, it's still not managed to do any files and is still just logging the same warning. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 12:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's mostly fixed, it just doesn't look like it. People have been busy deleting old versions of non-free files and moving images to Commons. The bot doesn't need to do anything with those files, but it still needs to look at the deletion logs for them, which takes time. (The bot finally caught up to actual deletions a few minutes ago.) --Carnildo (talk) 21:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I've added a help=off parameter to all the DI tags, similar to how the CSD and PROD tags have them. Can ImageTaggingBot be updated to include that in its tags? Thanks. – Train2104 (t • c) 13:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The two images File:Kerala police forensic experts investigate the van which was allegedly used by culprits.jpg & File:Dileep produced before the magistrate court which sent him to judicial custody.jpg were removed by the bot without reaching proper consensus. Please explain why? Thanks. Wikieditorhja (talk) 04:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The images were deleted by User:Explicit for being clear violations of the non-free content policy, specifically point #1: a non-free image can only be used if a free equivalent cannot be created or obtained. The bot was simply cleaning up the leftover links to the deleted images. --Carnildo (talk) 21:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A specially created image was placed and I recieved this response...

"Speedy deletion nomination of File:Chariot Images from lost in Space (2018).jpg[edit source]

A tag has been placed on File:Chariot Images from lost in Space (2018).jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{Non-free fair use}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file. If the file has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it."

I did re-upload as suggested but it was ddleted again by the bot. Tt may have been an error where I placed the {{Non-free fair use}} tag. can you advise where exactly in the upload info boxes i should place this in order for the image to be accepted, or the correct procedure to allow the acceptance, step by step... as I am new and learning - regards RokkoRokkoRokkanno (talk) 22:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir, I am from hiwiki. I see that your bot removes non-exist image. Please sir, Can you give me scripts? so that I can run on my local wiki.-- Jay ❯❯❯ Talk 17:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The source code is available at User:ImageRemovalBot/removebot.pl; you'll also need the support libraries at User:FairuseBot/Pearle.pm, User:FairuseBot/Pearle/WikiPage.pm, and User:FairuseBot/libBot.pm. --Carnildo (talk) 19:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Corporate terrorism. Since you had some involvement with the Corporate terrorism redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. --Nevé–selbert 20:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Could you check your bot's behavior at File:Warcraft III - Arthas - The Culling.jpg please? The NFCC template prefills the source information automatically and does not require a specific source as the default source is almost always correct. Yet the bot keeps tagging the file as missing source information. Other files I used with the same template (e.g. File:Dungeons 3 - Thalya.jpg) were not tagged. Regards SoWhy 07:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Can be obtained from the distributor" is sufficiently vague that the bot ignores it. The bot expects you to fill out at least one of "source", "publisher", "owner", "website", or "distributor" fields; it currently ignores the "developer" field, and I'm undecided on changing that, since the developer frequently isn't the copyright holder, particularly for promotional material. --Carnildo (talk) 20:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the template {{Non-free use rationale video game screenshot}} does not require those fields to be filled out, so I see where the clash is coming from. I'll add more info but for the future, before you make a change as contemplated, the template should be changed first. Regards SoWhy 15:34, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good work from the bot here, but I'll occasionally find articles where it's taken out a deleted lead image and nobody's reacted to replace it with something else. I've just fixed up Shadowgraphy (performing art), which has been without a lead image for five years, despite replacements being easily found on commons. Would it be worth the bot adding a maintenance category when erasing the only image from a lead section (and/or the only image from an article), so that humans interested in fixing these issues can do so? --Lord Belbury (talk) 12:22, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Lead image" is too nebulous a concept for the bot to deal with. There's no good way for the bot to tell the difference between "first image in an article" and "first non-infobox image in an article". Anything I do to implement this will be prone to false positives, false negatives, or both. "Only image" is easier, but the bot can't tell the difference between meaningful images and user-interface images. It would see Shadowgraphy, Roger Malik, and Johan Ernst Berg as having images, when a human would say none of them does.

Adding a maintenance category is a good idea, but it's not something the bot is capable of doing correctly. --Carnildo (talk) 22:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, I assumed the bot would be doing all its work at the unparsed wikisource level and wouldn't see the images in stub templates. That's fair enough then, if it's looking at this differently.

Do you think there's any mileage in adding an "only image was deleted" template (I guess a talk page template that uses a new subcategory of Category:Wikipedia requested images) even if it did overlook a lot of false negatives? Helping humans to catch some of these is better than none. --Lord Belbury (talk) 08:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a template would be worth it. I just checked ImageRemovalBot's hundred most recent edits, and between stub templates, deletion templates, warning templates, flags in infoboxes, icons in navboxes, and other user-interface or decorative elements, very few of them would be seen as not having at least one image.

The bot does almost nothing with unparsed wikitext -- that stuff's a pain to work with if you're a computer, because there are so many different ways of doing things. The bot doesn't even edit the raw text, it parses it into something easier to work with, then unparses it before uploading. --Carnildo (talk) 21:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article -kinesis is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/-kinesis (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ajpolino (talk) 19:54, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carnildo. I maintain a weekly database report tracking files without a license tag. Since ImageTaggingBot already tags files found in the upload log, is there any way you could have the bot process this list of files too? Thanks, FASTILY 03:56, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Should be easy enough. The bot's not real fussy about where it gets its list of images from. --Carnildo (talk) 06:49, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is the meaning of "incosistent state" on User talk:ImageRemovalBot/badfiles? Perhaps it should be explained on User talk:ImageRemovalBot. Hyacinth (talk) 00:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's an image that shows up in the API as both "deleted" and "not deleted". It's been more than a year since the last time the bot found one, so maybe they've finally fixed the bug that was causing it. See https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T35292 --Carnildo (talk) 01:58, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just received a message claiming that i've not provided the source information, etc to the File:William McFeely.jpg image. This information was and is provided in the Image's file summary, but the display was not coming through right: (I swapped templates and rewrote the file summary.) The url source for the image is https://www.radcliffe.harvard.edu/people/william-s-mcfeely, which links to the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study Harvard University. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was missing close brackets in the "Minimality" parameter. That broke the template, and kept ImageTaggingBot from being able to read it. --Carnildo (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Is the image okay? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:16, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The claim of being impossible to replace is questionable. The general rule of thumb is that for someone who died after 2000, there's a good chance that someone has a photo that they'd be willing to give Wikipedia under a free license (try contacting his estate, or the public-relations offices at Harvard and the University of Georgia); additionally, he was active prior to 1977, so it's possible there's an older photo of him somewhere that was never copyrighted in the first place. --Carnildo (talk) 18:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The Nonmetels. Since you had some involvement with the The Nonmetels redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask why you remove the images?? AslanLionheart (talk) 21:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to your rifle uploads, they were deleted by a number of administrators for violating copyright. You can't just grab images off random Internet pages and use them on Wikipedia. --Carnildo (talk) 00:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Could you tell ImageRemovalBot to, when commenting out images with two or more line breaks either side of the image, either to place the opening <!-- at the end of the previous line or to place the ending --> at the start of the next line. What it's doing at the moment has the effect that it effectively leaves three line breaks, meaning there is a noticeable 'gap' in the middle of an article.--Launchballer 01:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ImageTaggingBot said an image I uploaded (ContrabandVelvetRevolverAltCover.png) wasn't tagged when it had a non-free fair use rational on it. I'd like to know what happened with the bot to flag it. ItsCreamfan (talk) 01:57, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dead people has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 21:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The template below was left on my user page but appears to be erroneous. Please note the following issues:

1. A citation was provided for the image
2. The bot claims that "ImageTaggingBot does not tag images for deletion." but it left a tag on the image saying "Unless this information is added to this page, the image will be deleted after 17 February 2021."
3. The bot's documentation talks about "lacking source information" but this is a red link and so the thing that's it's looking for does not seem to be defined.
4. The bot repeated itself – that's edit-warring

Thanks for uploading File:Kristoffer Domeij.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 13:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew🐉(talk) 10:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The issue has now been posted at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#ImageTaggingBot

Should have checked my revision (1014448688) further before applying it. Sincerely, Deauthorized. (talk) 04:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

File:Religious Zionist party logo 2022.svg hasn't seemed to have had a license for its entire existing. Why hasn't it been tagged as a file without a license? Jonteemil (talk) 22:40, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. The bot got confused by the transclusion of Module:Arguments, Module:GetParameters, Module:Redirect, and Module:String2, and couldn't tell if the page had a license tag or not. When that happens, it takes the conservative route and assumes that an unknown transclusion is a license template it's never seen before. I've updated the bot to recognize that those modules are not licenses. --Carnildo (talk) 01:07, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, sounds good.Jonteemil (talk) 13:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I have now also found File:Green Climate Fund.svg which also lacks a license without ImageTaggingBot tagging it.Jonteemil (talk) 22:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are going to be a number of files out there with the module-transclusion problem. I suspect it's going to be anything with a {{information}} template but no license. --Carnildo (talk) 07:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually File:Green Climate Fund.svg didn't have {{Information}} but rather {{Non-free use rationale logo}} without a license, see Special:PermaLink/1043234501. Is it the same problem still?Jonteemil (talk) 21:57, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Templates derived from {{Non-free use rationale}} use Module:Redirect to categorize the type of article link present, which got the bot confused. --Carnildo (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I noticed that at Tam O'Shaughnessy, the image's file border remains after the deleted image was removed by ImageRemovalBot. I was wondering if the file border could also automatically be removed when a deleted image is removed by ImageRemovalBot. Thanks! MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into it, but template parameter syntax is so complicated that I can't guarantee anything. --Carnildo (talk) 05:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You are listed as a member of the Bot Approvals Group but it appears you may not be actively helping in this area anymore. Do you intend to return to BAG-related activity on Wikipedia, or are you happy to be removed from this list? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:56, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to remove me -- I've been inactive on actually approving since the beginning, and haven't commented on a request in years. --Carnildo (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay will do, thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This edit by ImageRemovalBot deleted one of two images used with Template:Multiple image, resulting in a single over-sized and distorted image looking like a mess. Please note, I am not contesting why the image was deleted. I wonder if there is a better way to remove the image from the page without the resutling mess? This could be a unique situation where the bot flags the page for manual deletion? Best wishes. Flibirigit (talk) 00:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's hardly a unique situation: there are many image-display templates that look less than ideal once the bot's removed the image. It's only worth coding special handling if the result breaks the page. --Carnildo (talk) 05:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]