User talk:Gnome (Bot)/A1

Testing the Bot Shutdown code

Test edit, Gnome, you are not bad, but I must do this any way.

Double checking the halt code.

THIS IS NOT REAL, IS ONLY A TEST BY THE BOT OPERATEREagle (talk) (desk) 20:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TEST IS SUCCESSFUL. Code is working perfectly.Eagle (talk) (desk) 20:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you removing cleanup tags?

This bot has no purpose other than to remove cleanup tags which apparently were put there for very appropriate reasons. Please stop. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please DO NOT remove cleanup tages from stubs!

Please stop removing cleanup tags from stubs! The two types of template serve very different purposes, and are not interchangable. A stub template simply declares that the article needs to be extended - a cleanup tag indicates that it also requires things like grammar, punctuation, wikification, or general tidying to occur. A large number of articles here require both tags.

Oh my, it seems this user is randomly taking away cleanup tags, really, this sort of this should be band.--Cloak' 16:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This bot has been blocked since 27 March 2006

Eagle (talk) (desk) 17:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC) (I am the bot operator, I just don't want people thinking that is still editing)[reply]

IT IS NOT OPERATING

trial run

thanks for a completed trial run Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 04:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Testing again for Eagle Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 14:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per User:Alexwcovington page directive #1, the following edit is being returned to you:

[[Category:Wikipediholic Wikipedians]]

Please do not make random and/or perfecting edits of User:Alexwcovington for reasons of self-interest or changing policy trends (essentially, for any reason at all, save vandal reversion). --AlexWCovington (talk) 05:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

==edit to Grout==

I understand the removal of deleted categories, but a) you missed Category:Brick and b), you added {{tool-stub}} inappropriately to the article. Argyriou 06:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, it will catch brick at another time, or another bot will. These things work off of lists of categoryies. On adding {{tool-stub}}, it did not, all it did was move the stubs around. tool-stub was there before the bot got there. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 11:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

leaving articles without categories

Why is your bot removing the categories from eg Prevost's Ground Sparrow and Tufted Flycatcher and leaving them without any cat?

jimfbleak 07:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My user page

You messed it up and removed all the categories when you were only supposed to remove one! :( -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 08:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:PC users should not have gotten in my list. Sorry about that.

No problem! It actually moved all my categories to the bottom, whereas I have them next to the appropriate userbox to keep them in the right order and to know to delete a category if I decide to delete a box! I didn't think something like that would have such a devastating effect on my user page!! -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 13:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cat removal

I see you remove categories from articles, could you specify what criteria you use? I feel that some of them might not be correct (I think Tricaine methanesulfonate ís an organic compound, and 1,3,2,4-Dithiadiphosphetane 2,4-disulfides ís an organophosphorus compound, from the latter you do not remove organosulfur compound (which is álso is), so the change is a bit random). Cheers! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, saw the first (tricaine methanesulfonate), that is not a non-existing cat, it is a typo .. I repaired that one and reverted the others. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More on cat removal=

Does this bot go around removing all red cat links? Does this mean the answer is to create a category as soon as one entry is written to go into it, rather than wait till there are a few? Don't see the point myself, as I now have to revert some of the edits made and create the categories! Markspearce

This bot is running off of a genreated list of empty cats. Basically we don't want red-linked categories. Please look at WT:CFD if you have more questoins.—— Eagle (ask me for help) 01:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Peel session artists

I notice that the robot has removed the above category from the article on Splodgenessabounds. I originally included it, based on the BBC external link, viz. *BBC - Keeping It Peel - biographical webpage This website page specifically quotes a John Peel Maida Vale session on 28/10/1980.

Derek R Bullamore 18:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tenimyu Categories

I noticed that this bot removed the Prince of Tennis category from the Prince of Tennis Musicals (Tenimyu) article, which I think might be a mistake because the musicals are based on the anime/manga, so that Prince of Tennis category should belong there. I've added the category back, which I wanted to let you know. Vera26 09:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why remove 'natural kind' from Category:Philosophy of Science?

I think that's an appropriate category for Natural kind. viz: 21:10 Natural kind (diff; hist) . . Gnome (Bot) (Talk | contribs) (Robot: Removing from Category:Philosophy of Science) CHE 16:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, true, Category:Philosophy of Science does not exist, but Category:Philosophy of science does, and it's got lots in it, [1], so instead of being removed, the category tag's capitalization should have been changed. CHE 19:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

editing templates

I stopped this bot because it broke the template {{Article summary}} when it edited it. I must say I am concerned that a bot would be allowed to automatically edit templates for this very reason. I'm also not a fan of removing red-cats as they can have a use, but I'll leave that for the proper talk page.--Bookandcoffee 14:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

correct there are few Templates that have red cats this is the first Ive seen and Ive been doing the samething. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)}^WP:BAG16:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC) From User talk:Eagle 101[reply]

Same thing as Betacommand, there are over 10,000 redlined categories. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 21:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userpages

Sometimes red link categories are used on userpages purely for humorous effect, regardless of whether the category actually existed. Additionally your bot has a tendency to make unneeded, unwanted formatting changes, which sometimes break the layout of a page. Perhaps you could give your bot a list of page titles to permanantly ignore. — CharlotteWebb 09:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Okamoto

Hi. Just wondering why Mike Okamoto was removed from category Japanese American artists? --Tenebrae 13:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC) Why was category Irish Diplomats removed from Con Cremin?Durrus 17:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Airport rating

Please see User talk:Eagle 101#Bot request. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Regarding the article Ash (near Taunton) - you have edited, have you got any green idea about the origin of the name Ash?

Eliko 00:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the NovelsWikiProject lists

Any change of some work on the NovelsWikiProject lists - or opening up running to others :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 16:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a automated to all bot operators

Please take a few moments and fill in the data for your bot on Wikipedia:Bots/Status Thank you Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated message to bot owners

As a result of discussion on the village pump and mailing list, bots are now allowed to edit up to 15 times per minute. The following is the new text regarding bot edit rates from Wikipedia:Bot Policy:

Until new bots are accepted they should wait 30-60 seconds between edits, so as to not clog the recent changes list and user watchlists. After being accepted and a bureaucrat has marked them as a bot, they can edit at a much faster pace. Bots doing non-urgent tasks should edit approximately once every ten seconds, while bots who would benefit from faster editing may edit approximately once every every four seconds.

Also, to eliminate the need to spam the bot talk pages, please add Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard to your watchlist. Future messages which affect bot owners will be posted there. Thank you. --Mets501 02:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance of some re-runs of the Novels project autolists

Any chance anybody ! :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 16:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowyze

This is to let you know that the article on Shadowyze has been targeted for deletion and needs support. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lojah (talk • contribs) 20:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Blanking talk pages

[2][3] Kotepho 19:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I had a bad variable name, problem is fixed. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 20:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't run broken bots

Your bot removed this image Image:1 Taiwan Yen Note, 1944, serial 569143.PNG from my user page gallery. It's a public domain image, not fair use. Fix your broken bot. SchmuckyTheCat 22:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its in a category with fair use images. The problem is now fixed. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 22:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image -> Media ?

Pertaining to edits such as [4], what's wrong with simply changing the [[Image:...]] to a [[Media:...]] ? Last time I checked, doing it this way was fine when it's a topic of discussion, just as long as the image itself is linked and not inlined. Regards, Tuxide 00:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image removal

Gnome (bot) removed Image:10 Heller Note.jpg from my gallery. I believe this particualar example to be in public domain, but I have refrained from replacing it nonetheless. Because images tagged with {{Money}} can go either way, I believe that you should give users the benifit of the doubt (there seems to be a similar situation two strands above this one). J Are you green? 01:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I noticed this flaw, and it has been fixed (I thought I had reverted all edits related to money), sorry about that. In any case the bot is no longer removing images tagged with {{money}}. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 01:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments and a suggestion

One, good work! I don't find the above comments compelling reasons to stop. I've been doing precisely this sort of work for several thousand cases. The policy is clear; no fair use outside of the main article namespace. Even if a particular image is being discussed, that image can be linked rather than displayed. Keep on with it. It needs to be done.

In observing the work of the bot, it has performed about 250 removals in 2 days of operation on May 6 and may 7. I submit that this is too slow. So far, it's only gone through Image:6*. Some estimates have placed fair use image abuse as high as 46,000 cases. Let's say it's half that, 23k. If this bot proceeds at 125 edits per day, it'd take around half a year to complete the task. Of course, once done it has to start anew. Regardless of my efforts, fair use abuse keeps happening without any apparent (that I've been able to gauge) slow down in new abuses. I'd prefer to see this bot operating fast enough to eliminate ~25k abuses in one month. --Durin 20:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

right, the bot has been stopped for technical reasons, I will start it again soon. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 06:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

suggestion

If the bot is to continue running, it should at least change the image inclusions to image links instead of replacing the image with another image. — The Storm Surfer 21:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done several thousand of these removals by hand. In >99% of cases, linking was not the appropriate action, but removal was. --Durin 22:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gregorys

Hi, if you want just delete those images as I have no use for them. Thanks. Mindys12345 04:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To send to programmer about: Image:Belldandy (Oh My Goddess!).png

The image is no longer necessary on Wikipedia anyway. I just kept it on as part of my record. However, there has been recent problems over fair use images which could undermine Wikipedia,therefore I recommend the suspension of Gnome Bot till the problems have been averted. Else a "massacre" could occur and make Wikipedia "alienating". -Dynamo_ace Talk

Keep this bot going. Please. --Durin 14:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I thought that you stopped your fair use image enforcement. Your doing a "interceptor flame" by saying that, some advice, don't! Because i have seen it myself a few times. -Dynamo_ace Talk

Image:1992 Rapture.jpg

I took the photograph Image:1992 Rapture.jpg. Its subject matter is a poster whose copyright can probably never be firmly established, hence the need for fair use claims on one of my own photos. I keep this image in the gallery on my User page as a means of tracking its status (it was removed once before, in fact, as I'd incorrectly uploaded it as dual-free-licensed, and the image on my user page was how I discovered it had been removed).

I'll make appropriate comments on the discussion page for the user page guidelines as well, since obviously maintenance of one's own images should be included in the site's fair use policy. Meanwhile, please make sure your bot does not remove the image again. If a human does so, then I can discuss the issue with that human. Thanks -Harmil 03:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to make the bot not remove that image in a special case for you at this time. Until policy changes, and I have little reason to think that it will), fair use images should not be in userspace period. We don't allow fair use galleries in mainspace, nor will we allow them in userspace, as there is no way to justify that usage in a fair use justification on the image. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 06:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abomination.jpg

Your bot has removed this book cover and several others that I uploaded. This is an incorrect action as the image is/are fair use of a book cover(s). Please correct your bot or explain your actions. thanks Tony 11:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Tony[reply]

Image removal from userspace

I noticed the bot removed an image which it said was in my "userspace". It was actually in User talk:Stevage/archive1. I really don't care about the image or anything, but I don't think a user talk page is the same thing as "userspace". It would be quite reasonable to include a fair use image in a talk page, if you were discussing the image with someone, while trying to decide if it should be included or not, for example. Just something to think about. Stevage 01:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use example.jpg as the replacement image! Pages which contain that image are usually pages which contain editing experiments, so it's the pages which need to be checked for vandalism. If the list of pages using is as long as it is now, it is impossible to find the pages which really need to be checked - before I went into vacation a month ago the list was empty, apparently noone else checked it during my absence :-( Anyway, for pages which really should include an example image, then please use example.png instead of the jpg, it's the same image anyway. As you are a bot anyway - please change all those pages you already modified, doing that manually for those 100+ pages would be a pain. andy 19:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really doubt this bot's image removal is doing more good than harm. To mention one problem that the above two users haven't pointed out already, some (many) of the user pages containing fair use images are also violating other Wikipedia user page policies, and you are making it harder to find them. — The Storm Surfer 02:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All removals are logged here so if you wish to find other violations you are free to do so. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 20:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please use your bot ASAP to change those example.jpg's it placed to Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, to make it possible to check the list of pages using example.jpg again. It is no impossible to find the real pages needing attention between the hundred user and user talk pages. andy 18:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After the fact

A polite request, could this bot be split in two, one version to give some warning, and one version to do the changes.

I find it a little insulting that my sandbox was edited on policy grounds but that I wasn't given the opportunity to resolve the problem myself. Really people, we aren't in kindergarten anymore.

perfectblue 06:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, that was originally the way it was structured, and future runs may fit that model, I've done my best to make the bot not screw up anyone's formating (only changing an image name). I found a few things wrong with the waiting pattern, mainly that if the bot said that it would be back in 4 days or so, the user might be offended that he was being *told* to do something. In addition to the sheer size of the task, the second bot may not be around till 8 days later. In any case I don't see a way that this task can be done to make everyone happy. :S —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 06:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At least can you change the image? It's big and red and thus looks like a waring sign. It practically screams "Danger, you have violated policy, the Admin are after you". I think that a white square with simple black text would be better. It certainly would panic novice users less. - perfectblue 07:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll ask the guy that helped to make the image. :) Thanks for your input. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 07:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image fixed. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC) (the person who help make the image for Eagle). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle, I've run into similar complaints as the person who started this thread. There's been substantial discussion about it before. The general opinion has been that if a bot were ever to do this work (and now it is) it should do the removal and notify the user, as your bot is doing. There's no sustainable reason why these violations should remain extant pending user's own removal. "No your honor, we did not eliminate the copyright violations because we were being polite and waiting for the user to remove them". That wouldn't fly :) Keep removing, and keep notifying...but keep removing. --Durin 13:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot tagged

Hello! The Gnome Bot tagged an image in one of the userboxes on my personal page (Image:Buj-logo.jpg) as being removed as a fair use violation. However, the image is still in the template. I reworked the fair use criteria for the image and provided a source; will this be satisfactory? Willbyr (talk | contribs) 12:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image may not be used on userboxes. It may only be used on actual encyclopedia articles. --Durin 13:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lk:Billy Talent

I have reverted this edit, it was only discussion about and linking to the image. -- Reaper X 17:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats odd, if the image was not being used, the bot should not even had cared if the image was there or not. (Do note I think that image is indeed a replacable fair use image. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 20:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Brian Mar.jpg

Hello Bot and botmaker. on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Systems/List of Systems Engineering Images page the Image:Brian Mar.jpg was replaced by the Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg because of non-free content policy.

Please tell me which of these policies is violated..??

The thing is that the page is part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Systems. This project is an initiative to organize, thematize, personalize and actualize these information on Wikipedia around systems and systems engineering. One of my actions is to upload actual images and personal images of notable persons and processes... and these are gathered in that particular list. And further:

The person Brian Mar is listed as notable, see [5]
We are just started and are planning to create a serie of article on systems engineers, see [6], where Brian Mar is one of them.

Please tell me if there are more reasons why we can make a fair use of the Image:Brian Mar.jpg picture in this process? Thank you - Mdd 18:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mdd, the use of fair use images outside of the main article namespace is prohibited per terms of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria item #9. Such images can be linked to outside of actual articles, but they may not be displayed. This is why the image was removed from Wikipedia:WikiProject Systems/List of Systems Engineering Images, and why a number of other images need to be removed as well (the headshots in particular). --Durin 18:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this fast respons. I studied the criteria and it seems I have some things to do:

In the list I replaced the pictures by a listing, so this is solved. Right or wrong?
The other images in that list come from federal governement sources and are copywrite free. I guess they are no problem over there?
I've tried adding to the Image:James Brill.jpg but the picture still shows in the category:Systems engineer. Do you know what goes wrong here? Shouldn't I have put the pictures in a category in the first place?
The Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria item #9 doesn't explicit exclude project pages. Maybe it should?

I'm just learning about using images on fair use bases and I like to learn more. - Mdd 19:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responding point by point: (1) Listing an image is ok. Displaying it is not. (2) U.S. federal government are almost always public domain. (3) Rather than no gallery, just link to the images. Easier. (4) Item #9 excludes anything but the main article namespace, which precludes use in project pages. --Durin 19:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Three point solved. I only don't understand the third point. My question remains: Can I or can't I put the picture in a category? For example Image:James Brill.jpg is now categorised in the category:Systems engineer. Is this allowed or not? - Mdd 19:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Fair use images may not be displayed in categories. --Durin 19:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So I have to remove the term category:Systems engineer out of the image-document? - Mdd 19:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just fix the no gallery tags. I'm not an expert on them ,sorry :( --Durin 19:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The no gallery tag doesn't seem to work. An other thing I don't understand is the existence of the

With the Image:James Brill.jpg I added a section Fair use rationale for use in the article International Council on Systems Engineering. But I can't get ride of these category. Do you know anything about this...?? - Mdd 20:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

return the choo-choo

please return the image of charlie the choo-choo —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blu elph44 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Your bot is removing images that are correct and fair use!

I have a copy of an article I wrote, Council of Magickal Arts, at User:BillWSmithJr/Council of Magickal Arts. Your bot just removed the image from my user page copy... the image is a no-profit corporation's logo, used for identification. This is a use SPECIFICALLY allowed on the page your own boilerplate pointed me to! I think you need to re-think what you are trying to do with this bot! --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 06:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It says on Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg that replacing [[Image:Foo.jpg]] with [[:Image:Foo.jpg]] will prevent the link to the image from being changed by the bot (although last time I checked that was broken). Tuxide 06:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Thaiflag emblem map by Melanochromis.jpg

I'm removing the tag as this image is currently used by portal:thailand. I think there's an error with your bot as it can not detect uses of images by portals. --Melanochromis 08:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cambodiaflag emblem map by Melanochromis.jpg

I'm also removing the tag of this image as this image is currently fair used by portal:cambodia. Like my comment above, I think there's an error with your bot as it can not detect uses of images by portals. --Melanochromis 08:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the image you are using, it is compiled of different images under different licenses. You can't do that, so once I am off from school, I will help you not only display most images, but make it compliant with Wikipedia policies. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The same applies to the Thai image above you discussed. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just so its clear, the bot does not have a bug, it is configured specifically to remove fair use images in portalspace. I refer you to our non-free image policy, point 9, which statss that fair use may only be used in article space. Sorry :( —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 09:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I have reverted the images (this one and the above too) to tagged versions and removed them from the portal pages. Миша 13 11:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Image:Bmw e46 tuning 29 small.jpg

Image:Bmw e46 tuning 29 small.jpg has been removed from my userspace. The racing games userbox which used the same image has also been fixed (replaced with Image:Lamborghini-Murcielago.jpg found in wikimedia commons). Thank you. Sadartha 12:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:CanYouFeelTheSilenceCover.gif

Hello, Zanimum. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:CanYouFeelTheSilenceCover.gif) was found at the following location: User:Zanimum/Van Morrison. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 19:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gnomebot, I've deleted the page entirely. -- Zanimum 13:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use images

Hiya, I'm getting a lot of messages at my talkpage about non-free images in my userspace. I understand the intent of the bot, but I think it's getting a bit overzealous in this case. The page in question, User:Elonka/Sandbox, is a temporary page that's being used to edit an article that's going to go back into mainspace. As such, the images are only there in my userspace temporarily. Is there a way that I can tag the page so that your bot ignores it? --El on ka 15:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, there isn't. The way this is supposed to be handled is that while the article is in development in the sandbox, the images should be linked, not displayed. --Durin 16:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, is there any particular reason why the bot doesn't simply convert the images to comment form like Orphanbot does? E.g. it deleted an image on WP:GL where an editor was asking for a replacement of it. Result: nobody could see which image was being discussed. Same situation where an image had been discussed on an article talk page. Changing the images to links wouldn't have destroyed the context. It also appears that the bot doesn't check if the image is shown on the page or not. My sandbox contained a link to an image, since I try to keep track of my uploads, however, the bot erases it even though I had made sure that the image would only be linked to but not displayed. Simply erasing information about the affected images simply causes more work for others. Changing images to comment form (like Orphanbot) or to links would give much less work for others. Valentinian ^{T / C} 19:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Typically, the image linking creates layout problems. What image was removed is available in the history. Regardless of the case, the image can't be displayed. As to removing links, not displays, could you provide a diff? That would help diagnose. --Durin 19:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This [7] is the example I had in mind. Valentinian ^{T / C} 20:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes. That particular diff was quite unusual. I and others had no idea that [[Media: was a valid prefix transclusion tag. Unusual. Could you use [[:Image in the future please? The use of [[Media: was so rare I recommended to Eagle to ignore it rather than coding for that use in particular. Thoughts? --Durin 20:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I consider that a bug, and I thought I had that usage fixed, I'll investigate though, consider the bot down until bug is fixed. :) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 20:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm actually looking at the diff, that is the correct behavior, it is converting the media link to an image link. There is no change in the functionality other then the fact that when you go on the image page, it won't show up as a file link, but rather will show up in the what links here. This is useful for other bots. If it is preferred I can have the bot not send a message, if that is the only change made to the page on that edit. (Also I am turning the bot back on, there is no error in code, if it turns out that not notifying the user in that case is desirable, I'll code it in :) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 20:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I've converted the link to [[:image form. Valentinian ^{T / C} 20:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unclear as to what the result here was. Is the bot still going to unnecessarily replace images located in talk pages that are only linked? For example, see this edit and this edit. Neither was needed since both images were just linked (As in not visible unless the link was clicked), and the change made by the bot only serves to disrupt both previous discussions. I'd revert both, but I'm not sure that the bot isn't simply going to do the same thing again. MarphyBlack 21:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the images in question. Valentinian ^{T / C} 21:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's become clear since my last message that this issue was not taken care of as a result of the above discussion. These recent three consecutive edits somewhat illustrate that. There is nothing wrong with using the [[Media:image.*]] formatting in talk pages as this is very clearly still within the boundaries of acceptable fair use. The images are being linked, NOT made visible. It's a completely valid use. There's absolutely no reason to change them. I suggest to you, Eagle 101, that you alter your bot to compensate for this as these continued edits are bordering on disruptive activity. MarphyBlack 23:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh crap!, thats a different segment of the code, fixing now (I fixed it for userpages). —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 03:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is now fixed in the running version of the bot, if there are any problems, please let me know :) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 03:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also note I've reverted the bot's edits to that page, if it chooses to edit the page again, it will translate media files to :Image: files. The reasoning behind this is that future bots may not be looking for this, and both links provide the exact same result, just one (the media:blah.jpg format) puts the page in the file links portion of an image, while the :image:blah.jpg, does the same thing, but puts the page in the whatlinks here portion of the image page. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 03:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Richard_W.M._Jones

Please restore my userpage Richard W.M. Jones 21:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Over-zealous edit

I understand fair use images not appearing anywhere other than the mainspace, but the bot just reverted a link to a fair use image.[8]

Linking to an image is the correct way of doing this. Please fix. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happened to me too, the problem is the "Media" prefix. I've changed the image's prefix "[[:image" so it should work now. Valentinian ^{T / C} 21:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shiny, thanks. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Search and replace problems with non-free image removal

See [9]. The bot found a non-free image in the wrong place and consequently removed it, but it also removed what was straight text, a plain title. This is probably because once an image is identified by What links here, it does a straight search and replace on the page of the text of the image title, rather than only places where the image is actually used. This could be fixed by adding the [[ ]] brackets to the search and replace. Also, it might be a better action to simply uninclude the image while keeping the same title. This will make it so that someone reading the page still gets the meaning and can link to the image, without trawling through what could be a long page history, depending on where the image is. I don't see what is so important about preserving the formatting and dimensions. —Centrx→talk • 00:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can do that, but there are umpteen billion ways to show an image. You can get them in templates, partial templates, with the Image, marker, without the image marker, gallary tags... well you get the idea. Its not a straight foward task. I'll look into what I can possibly do to prevent that though. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 03:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mugen0.png

mugen0.png has been deleted from my userbox for "copyright reasons" although it is neccesarely "free" which I'm a little confused at, Is it bad to put it on my page at all even it is "free"? ~GhostSonic -Talk

I also noticed that another bot changed it to "non-free" game image too, possibly incorrectly ~GhostSonic -Talk

If you own the liscense to that image, and you were the one that uploaded it, you can change the tag to a free license. Please have a look at our page on images. Cheers! —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 03:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Abhay IFV.jpg

The image of Abhay cannot be taken at the moment. It's not accesible to the public, since it is under development. So let the image stay. The image is in public domain released by the MOD (Ministry of Defence) Indian Government. The only problem is that it cannot be used for ~~commercial purposes~~. The Image can be kept with fair use criteria. This applies to all images released by Government of India through their nic.in website. Chanakyathegreat 04:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the images can also be used for commerical purposes. The only restriction here is that it must be reproduced as it is. Modification of the image is not allowed. Chanakyathegreat 07:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg

To whom it may concern,

Hello, I just got your message and I don't understand a word that you are talking about. What image are you referring of? Please be more specific. King Shadeed 00:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to on user talk. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 04:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Book cover scans

I was a bit puzzled by the removal of a scanned book cover. I scanned the book and created the image. Is it against policy to add our own scans of book covers? Thanks Ashley VH 09:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you scanned it is irrelevant. The author of the book is still the copyright owner. Thus, you cannot release is under a free license. It can only qualify as fair use and can only be used in article space. Миша 13 10:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No diret link to relevant policy

I had a couple of images removed from my userspace, and I have no objection to that. On my talk page, the notice I received included "This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy." However, it took some effort to find the relevant policy. I suggest that the quoted text be changed to "This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy." or some equivalent. This may also prevent some of the complaints that otherwise would appear on this talk page. — MSchmahl… 10:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't edit my userspace

Please don't edit my userspace without letting me know first. Thanks. —Jo nMo ore 15:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The userspace doesn't exactly belong to the users. If it did, they could host whatever copyright violations they please there and noone could do anything about it. But since the bot makes edits in pairs (removal, notification), I believe switching the order (first notify and then remove) would satisfy your conditions, no? Cheers, Миша 13 16:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now changed the bot to notify users first, then remove the image. I don't know why order is important, but its an easy change to make in the bot code. :) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 17:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the "userspace doesn't exactly belong to the users", then hosting any fair use image isn't being used to any private purpose, correct? So how's that any different than being hosted in an encyclopedia article? Nagelfar 16:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because userpages are not encyclopedia articles and do not directly contribute to the project. --Durin 17:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the legal reasoning behind fair use, which depends on the nature of the use, If the user page is using the image for linking to the article, how is that any different than an extention of the article itself? Part of the natural reach of the article's influence. The bot can't know that, but it's a perfectly possible situation. Nagelfar 01:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

bot block

Any edit by your bot to my user page will be considered vandalism, please prevent it from editing my user page. Jernejl 21:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not include fair use images in your userspace, the bot will leave you alone. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about fair use images, that's not the point, i just don't want any bots editing my user page. Jernejl 09:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your userpage is not yours. Fair use images are not permitted to be on userpages, and the bot appropriately removed them. --Durin 13:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If bot removed the actual free usage images i linked to - i don't care, the only thing that bothers me is the bot editing my user page (please keep robots and skynet away from my user page KTHX). Jernejl 17:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-iterating, your userpage is not yours. Please see Wikipedia:User page for more information on this. The bot work will continue. --Durin 17:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The content is mine, or will you tell me copyright is void on wikipedia? also, the bot isn't yours, or is it? can i please get a response of the person who runs the bot? Jernejl 18:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bot owner isn't always available. Since I'm knowledgeable on these issues, having done thousands of similar removals myself, I am responding on his behalf. Also, you do not own copyright to your userpage. When you make an edit, such as to this talk page, look at the line two lines above the edit summary box. The last sentence says "You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL". Everytime you make an edit to Wikipedia, you release your edits under that license. You do not hold copyright to your userpage. --Durin 18:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Technically he does hold copyright to his userpage though, if no one else has edited it. Not that it matters since he also released his edits (including to his user page) under the GFDL. Garion96 (talk) 20:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durin is right that anything you submit here becomes GFDL as is clearly mentioned in each edit window. Your userpage is not yours, perhaps reading WP:OWN would clarify matters. We do not allow fair use images in the user space because it is against copyright laws for us to do so. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All you have to do is remove the fair use images from your usespace per our nonfree content policy. Regards. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 19:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there are no free use images on my user page, there "was" one, and a bot edited my page because the picture got removed, i just don't like the idea of random bots doing edits to my user page, i don't care about the free use image.

also, last time i checked, even if i submit anything i write here under GFDL, it doesn't mean that i can't use what i wrote here somewhere else under a different copyright license, but my point is, i don't want any bots messing with my user page. this has nothing to do with free use images except this bot. Jernejl 22:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of user picture

hey man it's fine that you deleted my user picture, but do you know which (if any) pics of Gandalf I can use? It would be a huge help. Kanogul ^(talk) 22:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try this one: Image:Gandalf02.JPG. --Durin 13:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More excellence

see this edit

Can this bot please be fixed or stopped someday? — The Storm Surfer 05:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bot may have some minor teething problems, but the occasional mistaken removal as cited in the second removal in the link above is minor in the grand scheme of things. There are thousands upon thousands of fair use image use violations. I spent more than a year doing these by hand (as have several other people). The net effect is that we were incapable of keeping up with the constant stream of abuses of policy regarding this issue. The bot gives us a tool to combat this problem in a way that makes it possible to keep a lid on the fair use violations. I'm sorry that you were negatively effected, but it's an easy fix on your end. I'm sorry for the inconvenience. --Durin 13:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, the problem was due to the order of the bot's edits. Sorry about that. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 19:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Project 17 frigate.gif and Image:Project 71 Aircraft carrier.gif

Image:Project 17 frigate.gif and Image:Project 71 Aircraft carrier.gif are the computer generated graphics released by Government of India. No alternative is available, nor it can be taken since the construction is going on and it is not complete. Hence till the ships are commissioned, the public domain images can be kept in Wikipedia. Chanakyathegreat 07:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These images are not tagged as public domain. If they are in fact public domain, please provide evidence of this. Without such evidence, we must assume they are copyrighted. --Durin 13:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate removals

Re: Image:Lasolcommercial.jpg, Image:LSmagazine.jpg, Image:Raidcartoon.jpg. These images were inappropriately removed from my userspace. They are my own work, but licensed under fair use due to shared copyright - thus they are allowable in my own userspace. See the fair use rationale on the image description pages. This may be a problem with other shared copyright images too, not only mine. In fact, the bot even removed one of the images that has a dual licence (split between a magazine cover and the photo on the cover) - this should not happen! --Janke | Talk 08:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The images are fair use. Our policy disallows the use of such images outside articles. Hence, the removals were correct. Also, it is my understanding that you cannot "dual-license" like you did on Image:LSmagazine.jpg. GFDL is incompatible because it's a free license, while fair use content is not. The concept of licensing the photo differently than it's content (which is apparently what you're trying to achieve) is also pretty awkward. Миша 13 09:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The policy is incomplete, since it does not take shared copyrights into account. Fair use in this case also applies to my user space, since I am the sole author of the drawings, and I can, by applicable copyright law, present samples of my own work in any medium I wish. I have restored them, but I did remove the magazine cover entirely from my user space, since that image is not entirely created by me (i.e. the cover layout is by the publisher). If you disagree on the shared copyright issue, please take this matter to the arbitration committee, thanks. --Janke | Talk 10:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The policy handles it just fine. Since you can not release full rights to the images, the images must be treated as copyrighted. Thus, they can not be used in the way you desire. I'm sorry. --Durin 13:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia needs the right to use an image for any purpose including commercial or it can only be used under fair use. If you release it to such a license then the problem is solved, I use Creative commons. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"readd" to "re-add"? - suggestion

Hi Gnome (Bot).
You removed a nonfree media image from my userpage, which is just fine. However, your message (italics mine) included "I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image ..." For a moment I thought 'readd' was a typo, and wondered what 'to not read the image to my user page' meant. Then it clicked.
I'm guessing I'm not the only user to be puzzled by this. Perhaps consider changing 'readd' to 're-add' in the message? Could you please pass this on to your master?
Bot on, G(B) --Shirt58 08:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done :) Thanks for the suggestio :) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 19:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone stop this bot?

This bot is surely malfunctioning. The copyright owner of two pictures had posted them om Talk:Sutton Hoo and this bot removes the links!--Berig 09:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Owner or not, these images were released under a non-free license. Such media are disallowed outside article namespace (Talk: is a different one). The bot did well; this was not a malfunction. Миша 13 10:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is questionable whether bots should be used where human discernment is a better choice. The copyright owner was very happy that his two images could be posted on WP. I have left him a message and I am positive that he will add the necessary tags in a short while.--Berig 10:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of work that has to be done on the subject of fair use violations disqualifies this as a job for humans to do. A much more reasonable solution is to delegate it to bots and let humans handle exceptional cases and mistakes. What is not appreciated is the hostility towards operators (see the lots of above posts) when the bots merely enforce our policies. Миша 13 10:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you that for some of us who add many pictures to Wikipedia, the bots are very discouraging and even obnoxious when they post a cold message that you have forgotten to add the source, just because the human operator does not take the time to see that you actually did so (in e.g. the edit summary).--Berig 10:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Berig, there are thousands upon thousands of fair use image use violations. I spent more than a year doing these by hand (as have several other people). The net effect is that we were incapable of keeping up with the constant stream of abuses of policy regarding this issue. The bot gives us a tool to combat this problem in a way that makes it possible to keep a lid on the fair use violations. Humans have simply been incapable of keeping up with the workload, despite our best efforts. Misza13 is absolutely correct. I'm sorry this was discouraging to you. There's no intent for this to be the case of course.
Also, please note that permission to use on Wikipedia is insufficient. We have two broad categories of images here; those available under a free license, and those not available under a free license. Permission to use on Wikipedia does not make an image a free license image. You may wish to see this, from Jimbo Wales (who founded this project) regarding permission to use images. It is, simply, a non-factor. Either they are free or they are not. If they are not, they may not be used outside of the main article namespace. If the copyright holder wishes to release rights to the images under a free license, they may do so with such release information being sent to m:OTRS. --Durin 13:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Past Masters Volume One and Two album cover

Why did you delete an album cover which is classified as an album cover? Steelbeard1 11:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

diff please? --Durin 13:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images are under fair use

As Autumn Forrester's partner I am going to jump in here. The pccaemblem image that this bot removed is under fair use. Please see Wikipedia:Logos for my reasons. I am realoading it and this is legal under the concepts of Wikipeia:Logo. The same goes for the sak comedy lab logo. Please reprogram your bot cause it's going crazy based onthe messegas on this talk page. Saksjn 12:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use images are permitted only on actual encyclopedia articles. I presume the bot removed a fair use image from a non-article that you have an interest in. This is in keeping with our policies as expressed at WP:FUC item #9. The bot is functioning properly, and there is no need to shut it down. There are a number of people who do not like what it is doing, but that does not change that what it is doing is in keeping with our policies. The problem isn't with the bot, it's with people who do not yet understand policy or understand it but don't want to see it exercised. --Durin 13:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mgm Sam Stern.jpg

Your bot tagged this image because someone altered the tag. Since when is changing a license tag allowed to call an image non-free? - Mgm|^(talk) 13:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This bot did not touch the image. I think perhaps your concerns are with Cydebot [10]? What Cydebot did was proper; {{promophoto}} has been deprecated in favor of {{Non-free promotional}}. --Durin 13:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly worried about Cydebot. I don't go around changing tags I want to see deprecated, but I made a mistake anyway, I thought it was removed from the article when it was removed from userspace. I blame server lag for not showing me in time. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Partidul National Liberal.jpg

I do not understand what is the problem with the image... It is the official logo of a Romanian political party, and the licence tag iscorrect. Image:Partidul National Liberal.jpg ES Vic 16:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria item #9. The image is tagged correctly, but it is copyrighted. This means it can not be used outside of the main article namespace, as you just did with the above comment (I've changed it to a link to the image rather than displaying it). --Durin 16:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery layout

On my userpage you edited this content which was within a Gallery tag:

Image:Red_road.jpg|[[Red Road (film)|Red Road]] film poster

to this:

Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg|[[Red Road (film)|Red Road]] film poster

However the HTML comments broke the layout of the page, preventing the .svg image showing up at all. Removing the comment fixed it. You may want to look at this and see if there is an alternative way you could do this. In fact I'm not sure I see the value of the comment at all, as a quick look at the edit history would reveal the source of the image?

Also I reiterate what a couple earlier respondents have noted about the language used in your comments. Insert links at the relevant parts to the relevant bits, and use plainer English. e.g:

... This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. ... Please don't add the image to your userpage again, and consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain.

--duncan 17:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the bug, I'm working on writing a better message. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 18:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clumsy

"Hello, Huw Powell. An automated process has found and removed an image... The image (Image:Mpc logo.png) was found at the following location: User:Huw Powell/Model Products Corporation. ... User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 06:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

Clumsy. Thanks for the "warning". Luckily I still have the image on my hard drive. This was a sandbox version of an article I am trying to write. Image should stay on WP for the future use. Why not just inform me not to "display" it on my WIP page? I understand what you are trying to do/doing here, but surely a brief advance warning would make sense? Then we could comment out the use in our sandboxes, leaving the fair use image available for when the article goes live. Will I get in trouble when I go to reload it, later? Huw Powell 21:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This bot did not delete the image. This bot does not delete any images. Please see [11]. An administrator deleted the image because it was an unused, fair use image that had been tagged as such for more than seven days. You're welcome to have articles in progress, but fair use images must be in use on live encyclopedia articles to remain on the project. --Durin 21:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe an exception for me?

Thanks for your bot keeping the fair use under control. And thanks for putting up with all the complainers- I think you're doing WP a good service. I just got a note about fair use images on User:Staeckerbot/Suspicious images. Perhaps your bot can ignore that page? The images there are meant to be very temporary, and the galleries are for quick verification that these images are duplicates. As far as policy goes, galleries at CAT:CSD routinely contain fair use images, but they are meant to be very short-lived. I hope that your bot code can accomodate an exception. Staecker 23:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah this is rather unique :S. Its for good purpose, and there is a need to see if there are duplicate images. Very unique situation, so I'll have my bot turn a blind eye to that page :) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 02:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks- Staecker 02:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bug

[12]. —METS501 (talk) 01:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. I was modifying the code, and missed out on one letter, that used to be a . Thanks :) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 01:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:SLU.jpg

Hello Bu b0y2007, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:SLU.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Bu b0y2007. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 18:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already changed this image. Please see Template:User_SLU... Thanks for reminding me. Bu b0y2007 02:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:The end video by birdhouse.jpg

Thanks for the heads up, but your bot is broken as it did not replace the text correctly. Subsequently, I have altered the page to be more meaningful. See User:Ric man/Images gallery.
--ric_man 10:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot malfunction

The bot just removed an image link from one of my archives. There's no rules against linking to fair use images, only to displaying them. I think you said something about fixing that earlier, but it obviously isn't working yet. Please investigate. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I see a diff please? —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 18:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, I've found it, consider it fixed. (bot won't run again till it is.) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 18:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have fixed it, now the bot will replace instances of Media:foo with :Image:foo. This will prevent it from showing up in the file links (and perhaps confusing other bots), while still leaving the same functionality. Cheers! —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 19:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your bot just removed BBC Virtual Crest again. It didn't replace it with a non-displaying link as you said it would. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kellergraham Image removals

Please note that the Societe de transport de Montreal doesn't require a license for use of their images. Please refer to this website for more information

But we do have permission to use them commercially or use them outside the context text listed? If not, then we have to call it fair use. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three problems

Three problems made me block the bot for now. First, see the section directly above this about a bug. Second, there has to be a way to avoid 107 edits to one page, especially all about images located on the same page [13]. Third, blanket find/replace strings (which it looks like the bot is doing) are not acceptable, as the aim is to just replace images. It screws up things like this. Feel free to unblock the bot when everything is sorted out. —METS501 (talk) 02:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Bug one is fixed. (it was already fixed) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 02:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bug 3 is fixed, I'm awaiting suggestions on how to fix number 2 as every bot that I know of stacks the messages. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 02:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the messages is no problem, but I think 107 edits in a row is a bit excessive. Are you going through Wikipedia page by page, or image by image? If you're going page by page, then just check all the images on one page before posting messages about that page; if you're going image by image, then I guess there's really no convenient solution. Either way, the second one is the least big deal, so you can feel free to resume operations. I've unblocked the bot. —METS501 (talk) 03:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bot's activity on my page had only five images to deal with, but even that's interminable and inefficient. See the diff where I shrank the bot's commentary to what the bot should have written (in a single edit) the first time. Wareh 20:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Saracen_Land_of_the_Infidel.jpg

Never mind, I'm reverting what I had here before. This bot generates, clearly, far more complaint than praise in its mission to correct a potential future complaint about a nebulous difference between article and talk space. Do you honestly not have anything better to do with your time? dharmabum 09:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot edit failed to format link properly

Please see here for an example of broken formatting caused by this edit by the bot. I've since corrected it, but maybe there was a bug? Anyway, congrats on the good work you are doing, and thanks for spotting the problems with the Middle-earth wikiproject images page - we had already put fair-use images ouside the gallery tags as links, and now the only ones remaining inside the gallery tags are those that are properly marked as free, since I've moved the ones your bot found (which were of uncertain or limited use). By the way, I presume you aren't doing this page by page, as I'm going through the Wikipedia:Today's Featured Article archives, and finding only some of the non-free images have been replaced, or maybe you missed them deliberately - what criteria are you using? Carcharoth 11:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah there was :(. Its fixed now though :) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 00:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bug?

Perhaps you could take a look at this? The bot replaced the image links only in its own notification. There are still user talk pages linking to Image:Nickelcreek.jpg because it's used in the {{WikiProject Nickel Creek Invite}} template. Jogers (talk) 12:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should be fixed. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 23:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Bot

1. Why did you delete my previous SIGNED comments. 2. Why do you totally ignore some of us. It seems that unless were one of your friends or an admin you delete our posts. Saksjn 12:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bot is getting a lot of messages, so archiving is pretty quick. Anyways, we do not delete posts at all unless the page is just getting too big, then someone archives. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox

A brief question about the policy under which this bot works. Isn't there some exemption for articles that are being sandboxed? It seems a little silly that they are being picked up too.

Couldn't there be some kind of sandbox category that entries could be added too in order to give them limited exemptions. I only ask as I've use my user space to sandbox project infoxboxes used by a couple of hundred pages, and their transculusions are being picked up in the sweep.

perfectblue 17:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are sandboxing articles, try using [[:Media:Example.jpg]] for now. This is a bug that has been reported to the bot owner, but here is what we are getting at. While sandboxing of articles happen, not many people clean out their sandboxes and they linger for time. So, eventually, we will have to go through the sandboxes and clear out the fair use images. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits made to my userpage

I'm really confused. I have a message from you on my talk page indicating that you removed (Image:Policemen and flowers.jpg) from my page User:CzechOut. But I never put that image on my userpage, nor can I find a record in the page history suggesting that this image was ever on my page. Could you please explain in greater detail what happened, since I don't wish to be seen as having violated a policy of Wikipedia. CzechOut 23:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really your fault. There was a non-free image on the userbox Template:User Czech History which I removed. Since you have that userbox on your userpage, you got the Bot's warning. Garion96 (talk) 00:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never uploaded or used a non-fair-use image! Shut this bot down!

According to this bot, I used a non-fair-use image on my userpage. However, I have never uploaded any images to Wikipedia, nor have included them in my userpage or on any article I have written. I have edited an article with an image that was not fair use, but I wasn't involved in that at all. I edited a different section of the article. This bot is malfunctioning. Please shut down this bot. Ice Ardor 00:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please check your userpage for Twigge/Userbox/SST which had a fair use image in it. Hope that clears things up :) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 03:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that image was fair use. But I agree, shut this bot down! - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)}^|^HISTORY 11:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not malfunctioning, there's absolutely no reason to shut it down. Миша 13 11:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A request for a slight change

since this bot leaves a message on the talk page, the repeated message in the image box seems unneeded, rather than preserving my layout, it would be more helpful to replace the image with a direct link to it's location, you know Image:Fair-use image... -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 01:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This request cannot be done in all cases, there are multiple ways to put an image in an article. {{image|foo.bar}} (an image put in vie a template) cannot be turned into a link :(. As such it is safer to just swap out the images, with a commented out section saying what the image was. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 04:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think people would mind the potential format breaking any more than they would having the page turned into a bunch of weird gray circles. --tjstrf talk 07:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TURN OFF THIS BOT!

Can someone please turn off this bot, it is making the whole fair use saga worse while the programmer is on holiday! --Dynamo_ace 16:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

If it's working fine, I don't see a reason to shut it off. The fact that some people Don't like what it's doing if not a good enough reason. Миша 13 16:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it is working just fine. The policy is clear; no fair use allowed outside of the main article namespace. The bot is doing a fantastic job. --Durin 16:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm here. Don't worry I don't let it run much when I'm not around to deal with potential bugs. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 17:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If this bot is working so fine, why have I been threatened three times to have an image removed that I didn't even upload? ---- DanTD 13:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then...

then remove the image!! don't spam my talk page, please (several times) --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:GrimhelmConversion.jpg

This Bot keeps removing an image from my page which is not only my own, but is tagged as public domain. Most annoyingly, it also changes the link "Image:GrimhelmConversion.jpg" to "Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg", [14] so it adds an incorrect link to my page. Could it please be stopped from doing this? Thanks. :-) --Grimhelm 13:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Failed replacement

Seems the bot fails to make replacements in some cases. Anyway... a userbox as subpage of my userpage used a non-free logo. the bot failed to replace, came back days later and failed again (of course) so... time for an upgrade? Eric Bronder 13:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Image:Kim Possible Cast.jpg

For the record, I didn't upload this image. I just have it in a userbox. I also didn't put eliminate whatever threat of deletion you may have uploaded. There's no need for you to post the same message to me twice. ---- DanTD 13:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute; Three times? Gnomebot, you really are out of control, and deserve to be blocked. ---- DanTD 13:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It did this because the image is in Template:Kim Possible. It's certainly a malfunction though. --NE2 15:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's doing the same thing with me too. It just doesn't understand that the image isn't here, so I guess it keeps trying. Never seen my talk page fill up so fast ^_^; Or at all, for that matter... I think he's working on it, though. --Cartoonmaster 23:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

bot malfunctioning

Hi, I've just deleted three messages the bot has sent me regarding an image. It has simply dumped the same thing on my page three times in a row when it had already left the message the other day. It is also yet to actually do anything about the image in question. If it continues like this, you may have to consider shutting the bot down. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a non-free image in the userbox User:Junafani/Lordi. I removed the image.

Yeah, I know where the problem was. But the bot said it was going to remove it, then instead dumped the same crap on my talk page three more times. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Eagle101, is there a way for the bot to first go through templates/userboxes and then to userpages? I guess not actually since the userboxes are userfied. Garion96 (talk) 14:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep thats the problem, in any case, this run is complete, (or almost complete). So I'll just make the changes needed before running the bot again (confirming that an image was really removed), and figuring out why its having problems with subpages all of a sudden >.> —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 17:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This bot is still isn't working properly

I commented above about how this bot was breaking perfectly valid and non-forbidden links to images that appeared on talk pages. I was assured that it had somehow been fixed. However, the bot keeps making changes to the exact same images, even though they are just links (Meaning if I did revert the bot's changes, as I considered previously above, they would indeed just be broken again and again by the bot, just as I had predicted previously above). The only slight advantage this time is that the actual image name is being kept. Regardless, the link itself is still being horribly mangled. See here for an example of the same three images being altered (This is what happened three days ago). Here's another example of the bot devastating one particular conversation, rendering all the image links useless. Again, I'd like to stress the fact that these are only image links, i.e. NOT being included in a visible form on the talk page whatsoever. Therefore, there's absolutely no reason for the bot to be messing with them at all. MarphyBlack 18:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing Orange Book image

Just a brief "thank you" for removing Image:Orange Book.jpg from a draft infobox in my user namespace. You're quite right that it shouldn't be there; I forgot to delete it after I had pasted the draft infobox into the article. Tamino 21:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE STOP

The image mentioned in the automated message isn't even on the page in question. Please stop this BOT. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kellergraham (talk • contribs). 23:24, 19 May 2007

No the images were transcluded on the page in question. The non-free images were on User:Kellergraham/BoxAMT which is a template/userbox on your userspace. I removed the images from there. Garion96 (talk) 22:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh?!

Might I ask… Where this bot gets its information… I came on to look up something and noticed I had a new message. In the even of this, I go and check to see (like normal folk). Interesting enough… It is accusing me of uploading and image that violates the rules yatta yatta… I can clearly understand this… but I’ve never uploaded an image… I’ve added the message I got. So explain to me. Is it accusing me of something?

Hello Wayne McDaniel, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Forsaken-logo-for-the-world-of-warcraftgif.gif) was found at the following location: User:Wayne McDaniel. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Please note that it is possible that the image on your page is included vie a template or usebox. In that case, please find a free image for the template or userbox. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 12:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC) Wayne McDaniel 05:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MY user talk page...

Please STOP removing photos from my user talk page without properly reading the permissions granted by the owner of the photos. The owner stated it was ok to use the photos on Wikipedia. Period. So I can use the photos I uploaded on my talk page. Thank you. --RaffiKojian 05:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the permission was not sufficient enough the image is also tagged as non-free content so you can't have it on your user page per Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria #9. Garion96 (talk) 07:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who OWNS the peace sign?

Image:MLNW Button.jpg is not a copyrighted logo, as far as I know. Who owns the peace symbol? Please restore any changes in links to this picture.--Mike Nobody ¿ =/\= 04:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a public domain peace symbol you can use: Image:Peace sign.svg. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple messages

I really did not need 5 seperate messages within 4 minutes, at approximately 3:30am. I have removed the Camino userbox from my userpage. (I would think that the Camino icon would be allowable, but I guess not?? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Camino_icon.png )--VikÞor | Talk 19:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

butbutbut

I love that image. :( --Brenton.eccles 03:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of people are being affected by this, so while we understand your pain, we need to follow policy. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't even know!

Cheers. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:SimulatedReality MorpheusAndNeoInSmallSimulation.jpg

The image that was removed from my talk page was one which had been used on the Simulism page. My current user page was simply a copy of a [previous Simulismpage. I did not upload the image, and it is still there as an image on both the Simulism and the Simulated reality pages. The image has a box which clearly indicates fair use policy, and now I am confused. If it is incorrect use, then why is this, and furthermore why hasn't it been removed from the other two locations?

--TonyFleet 13:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because fair use is allowed in articles, but not on userpages. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lazer erazer

False Proposal?

I have seen Gnome doing lots of changes anywhere. Recently it has deleted all my photos that were licensed by the GFDL. That's quite annoying. I'll have to add them again. Not to mention that there wouldn't have been any doubts regarding copyrights as there was no such thing published that could be argued against. Sadly, it has not only replaced the images but deleted some of them without any prior notice (see report). I would like to block the bot for any further changes on photos regarding my user page or own creations. If this is not possible, please clarify any necessary changes that do stop the bot from doing malicious work. If it was a mistake done by myself, please clarify so. Wikipedia should also have documented on their help pages that valid licenses would actually be invalid and lead into deleted work. By the way, it has successfully ignored ANY fair use comments *argh*! Thank you. --Lazer erazer 15:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the deletion log has gone... and all the description I made :-( congratulations!--Lazer erazer 15:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Completely Unnecessary Removal

I am all for fair use and copyright laws when appropriate, but I think that this bot has erred in removing a link of a fair use image from an archived talk page of mine. The image wasn't even on the page, and now the message left on my page makes no sense, as it lists a totally different image. (diff). Normally, I wouldn't care, but when it comes to userspace, it would be nice if there either some warning (so that users can take their own initiative for removing fair use images) or some accuracy. I would hope that the maintainer of this bot will fix this error. Bratsche|talk 22:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We do have a warning, Section 9 of our page on fair use criteria where fair use images cannot be userpages. We have tried the warning approach many times for userboxes, letting people know, but not many users are doing it or they revert our changes. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

where's my image?

Dear Bot.

Why did you remove my image (Image:Light1.jpg), the cover of Bad Brains' "Rock for Light"? I had found it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Brains and if it is still there, then it's got to be OK with my page Tymek 04:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use is ok to use on articles, but it is not OK to use on userpages. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stay out of my page

Don't tamper with my page. Leave everything alone! Please stop it! --Spider-Man Fan 1994 17:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. My page is only for my use not yours!!!

Please read Wikipedia:Userpage#Ownership_and_editing_of_pages_in_the_user_space. Your userpage is not your property. --Durin 13:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistency of policy

Okay. Wikipedia RECOMMENDS using user pages as a staging area / sandbox / experimental scratchpad for fine-tuning an article before posting it. However, when user pages are used that way and include the actual content which will appear on the real article, gung-ho bots come along and take the liberty of screwing them up. Nice consistency, guys! That's not contradictory AT ALL! Scott Johnson 13:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The way to handle this is to link the images into the article, ala [[:Image instead of [[Image. If you need an image to be displayed for layout purposes, you can use Image:Example.jpg. --Durin 13:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not use example.jpg! Use Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, but not the same pic which is also added by editing experiments from the editing toolbar. andy 16:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what the problem in using example.jpg is? If you're just needing an image to preserve layout, seems a good one to use. --Durin 16:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

National Geographic Image

I got a message that the National Geographic image I am using in a userbox has been marked out for deletion. Please dont do so. The logo image wasnt uploaded by me but one which was already in existence in the Wikipedia page for National Geographic. So I am in no way concerned with that image. I presume that the uploader must have uploaded it only after considering its copyright status. Regards.--Ravichandar84 15:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well...you are concerned with that image since you put that non-free image on a userbox which is on your userspace. See User:Ravichandar84/Userboxes/NatGeo. Either way, I removed the image from the userbox. Garion96 (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Image:Swan Lake - Asylmoratova.jpg

The above image is actually with a userbox, and can be found at User:UBX/ballet dancing - my association with it is that I have the userbox hanging on my user page, and little else. But, copyright seems to be ambiguous, and is apparently under a regular copyright. So with that in mind, I'll strive to find a replacement on my own. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need to fix upgrade

I think this thing needs to learn when something is put there for an example and not on purpose and It's a little slow, considering that was there for about a month now.Sam ov the blue sand 01:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image Image:Amidaba rainbow(666Satan).jpg is a copyrighted image and may not be displayed, even for example purposes, on pages outside of the main article namespace. You can link to it, if you like, by writing the code as [[:Image:Amidaba rainbow(666Satan).jpg]] as opposed to [[Image:Amidaba rainbow(666Satan).jpg]] (note missing ":" in second example). --Durin 16:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't my example it was someone else's. I still think your bot is slow.Sam ov the blue sand 03:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Future deletion of Image: Leo.gif

I did not upload this picture. It was on the userbox i was using. I have no comment on it being deleted... i dont care. Sorry about it. Thanks 'Scaper | ƜööđÇüŦŦëř 22:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is still used in the VG Cats article, so it won't be deleted from Wikipedia. But thanks for removing the image from the userbox. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture Removal on my Talk Page

Hey, I'm not sure how that pic even got onto my page. Somebody just dropped by and commented with it. So no worries about removing it. I just left it there incase it meant something to someone. But thanks again for the message. ImtiazAA 14:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, your bot removed to images from my user page, a Samuel Adams logo and Johnny Walker logo. I did not upload these images to wikipedia, but rather linked to already uploaded images in the Samuel Adams (beer) and the Johnnie Walker wikipedia pages. The Sam Adams page lists the logo as "Fair use: Brand Logo", the Johnnie Walker Page says it is "Updated (official Diageo version)." This is the same manner in which I popiulated my state international flags that are posted on my user page.

Having already been loaded to those pages, I was under the assumption that it would be okay to load to my own page. Are there different rules from posting an image on page versus a user page? (Hardnfast 18:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Yes. You may not use fair use, copyrighted imagery on your userpage. Please see Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria item #9. Such images may only be used in the main article namespace. State flags are not copyrighted. Thus, they are ok. Image:Samadamsovallogo.gif and Image:Johnnie Walker.logo.jpg are both copyrighted. --Durin 18:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, thanks for the info, will figure out something different for those images. (Hardnfast 15:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for the tip on the picture but I didn't put it there. Someone kindly sent it to me as an example of how to upload pictures.Gold Apple 16:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then next time, have the user (or yourself) use Image:Example.jpg if you want an example on how to use images on Wikipedia. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Gnome or its owner...please stop removing images with valid image tags. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 02:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which image did the bot remove and where was it removed from? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several images from my user sub-pages were removed. User:RingtailedFox/Fang_the_Sniper is the one most heavily hit. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 10:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a page in your user space. Per Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria #9 no non-free images are allowed in user space. Garion96 (talk) 10:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i see. but when did wikipedia start on this massive copyright and image campaign? i thought things were just fine before. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 18:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use is still allowed, but they have been forbidden from userpages for some time. But, when we try to remove images from there, they get placed back days later. So, after the Foundation made a new image policy in March of 2007, we let the bots run and changed the way we deal with images. Nothing personal, everyone is getting nailed. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Image:Estonia-small-coa.png

The coat-of-arms was granted to Estonia sometime around 1219. Estonian copyright law explicitly exludes coats-of-arms from copyright.

The free image was loaded to Commons on 20 October 2005 by WikedKentaur.
On 3 January 2007 User:Valentinian labeled the en. page with {{PD-Coa-Estonia}}, creating the en. page but soon reverted, as it was redundant to {{PD-EE}} in Commons.
On 3 April 2007 User:Strangerer added categories and template {{Symbol}}.
On 30 April 2007 User:Cydebot replaced template {{Symbol}} with {{Non-free symbol}}.
On 16 May 2007 you removed the image as non free from the user page of User:3 Löwi.

The end result is, that a free image was removed without a cause. Something went wrong someplace, but what? -- Petri Krohn 23:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The edit at [15] pretty much caused the problems. The problem happened because people still tag images on the Commons with categories or with license tags, which makes an page for them "exist" on en.wikipedia. So, the next time you see something like that, you can delete the image page safely. I would caution Strangerer to not make those kind of edits again. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

I've been receiving messages from the bot about the Vesalius College mascot, the Silver Weasel logo. This logo was designed by a friend and myself (I digitised and vectorised it). It was the decision of the Student Government of the College as well as the Administration to make the addition and upload the mascot to the Wikipedia page. I therefore hold all rights to the image, and I do not wish for it to be removed either from the Vesalius College page or my personal page. This was made by me, I have the original work-in-progress files in my archives, so no one else has the right to claim this logo.

But since it is still tagged a logo, it cannot really be used on userpages, templates or anywhere outside of the article of Vesalius College. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blah

This edit is just annoying. /(Image:|Bild:)?Imagename/g like this does not work. Kotepho 06:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot removed image that was allowed under WikiPedia rules

--Wer2chosen 15:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your bot removed an image from MY user page, citing it was fair use. The userpage policy is stated below. I can use an image on my page, if I have permission from the copyright owner. I AM the copyright owner. So please replace the original owner. When I uploaded the image, I stated I was the owner.

Images on user pages Please do not include non-free images (images uploaded to Wikipedia without the permission of the copyright owner, or under licenses that do not permit commercial use) on your user page or on any subpage thereof (this is official policy and the usual wide user page latitude does not apply, see Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria for details). Non-free images found on a user page (including user talk pages) may be removed (preferably by replacing it with a link to the image) from that page without warning (and, if not used in a Wikipedia article, deleted entirely).

Work

So if I work and represent a company, I can't use their logo on my page...but I can wear their clothes inside and outside of work as a representive of the company? That makese no sense. I'm talking about the EMS logo which this bot took off my user page. The image was redone by me in photoshop and I had permission to post this by my employer since I'm an employee that represents the company so again, why couldn't I have the image on my page?The Cleveland Browns are awesome! 20:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link to the bot

Hi, I came here to say that it would be nice if, when you click on the image which says that it's been placed there by gnome bot, you'd see a prominent link to the bot. It's a bit sneaky that some anonymous gnome is going around stealing images from talk pages, leaving a calling card without a link.. ;-)

Also, now that I happened to come by, I saw the text "Even if you uploaded the image yourself, if it is copyrighted by someone else, you do not have the right of displaying it in a gallery on your userpage." I believe this is wrong; I haven't seen a policy which forbids placing free images made by others on your user page. Note that "a free, copyrighted image" is not an oxymoron; quoting from the free content page: Free content encompasses all works in the public domain and also those copyrighted works whose licenses honor and uphold the freedoms mentioned above. Indeed, the user pages themselves are copyrighted by those who wrote them (just like all Wikipedia articles), but licensed under the GFDL. -- Coffee2theorems 19:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Bot!

Hey bot, give my complements to your boss; you are a very fine bot! 84.87.138.105 20:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

What kinda images do you remove on user pages, talk pages and a few more and why? TobytheTramEngine 19:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gnome, You have removed a number of images from my User page for which I hold the copyright. They are still images from films that I have made myself which have no other distributor other than myself. I do not understand why they have been removed and what I need to do to put them back. Please advise. Charlotte —Preceding unsigned comment added by Croftscv (talk • contribs) 13:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.177.228.89 (talk) 18:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the emergency shut-off button?!

turn this thing off! it messed up some important user pages! 68.47.252.120 20:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page blanking

This bot has blanked Wikipedia:Requested moves at 00:00 UTC three days in succession. Please fix it. --DAJF 00:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, has once again today. JPG-GR 00:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leninorder.jpg

The license tag saysthis image is not an object of copyright, so it should be in the public domain, no? Why has your bot removed it from userpages, then? --superioridad ^(discusión) 09:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image of me by me removed??? If this is not malfunction then the function is wrong

Hi, this bot removed an image of me, made by me, and released to the public domain. The image was File:P-10-4-D70B.png and it appeared on my user page.

From reading the archives of this talk page it seems that although the owner/operated of this bot feels it is not malfunctioning it actually is (otherwise it wouldn't be generating so many errors found by real people).

I would greatly appreciate knowing the rationale for which the image was removed.

Thank you Dananimal (talk) 02:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal opinion

My personal opinion is, that this bot's work should be done by a human, because the bot lacks any intelligence, and it deeply disturbs me and the humanity within that such a bot is allowed to perform automated editing on wikipedia.

Jernejl (talk) 23:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AWB

Hi, I noticed that this bot hasn't used AWB for a considerable amount of time. If you still have plans to use it, please let us know so that we could remove unneeded bots from the check page. Cheers, MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 18:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]