Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:11, 27 April 2006

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

Answers to common questions

Why did you delete my image?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image

Hey, I got this message, do you think you could help me?

"Thanks for uploading Image:GalianoMap.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Misplaced Pages's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

Misplaced Pages:Image use policy Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 13:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Gfrankson""

If I recall correctly when I selected "copyright status unknown" it says that an experienced editor can help me figure out what the copyright IS? Could I mabye get that help? I am begginer, so the help would be appreciated.

Thanks!

--Gfrankson 21:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Orphan fair use backlog

Hi... I know you can't personally do anything about it right now, but there is a large backlog of orphaned 'fair use' images which need to be deleted. I've been busy with other projects, so I can't really babysit it right now... so I was wondering if you could go nag people to take care of these. There is also a backlog of orphan tagged non-orphans that any one could take care of... --Gmaxwell 20:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

If the toolserver hadn't stopped working, I could have used the list of tagged non-orphans to test out a semi-automated Misplaced Pages interface I'm developing. --Carnildo 07:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Chinese government licences

Hi! Would you be knowing if images published the the government of the PRC are in public domain? This is related to an ongoing debate at Misplaced Pages:Featured article removal candidates/People's Republic of China Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

No, but I suspect they aren't. --Carnildo 06:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is it called Orphanbot?

Would it not be better to take responsibility for this bot (if it is indeed your brainchild) and call it, say, "Carnildobot"? --Historian 08:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe in naming bots after what they do, not after who owns them. Originally, OrphanBot was designed for one task: orphaning no-source and no-license images so admins could delete them easily. Notifying users and other related tasks have been added since then. --Carnildo 18:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I see. Well, one of the things that this bot apparently does, judging from the entries above, is cause widespread irritation, so "Irritatingbot" might be a better name. You certainly seem to have an uphill struggle to win over/educate those wikipedians whose image contributions made in good faith have been affected by it! --Historian 00:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Removing Images

I noticed when this bot removed an image from the Reel Big Fish infobox, it also removed the "|" at the end of the line of the infobox code, causing the next line of the infobox to display in non wiki code, just wondering if this is something you can rectify to prevent it doing this to a whole lot of infoboxes. Thanks! Philc _T+C 13:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at , you'll see that there never was a "|" to begin with. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, though. --Carnildo 06:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Coordinate your bots, please

I've spotted what looks like an unfortunate interaction between Roomba and OrphanBot: see the edit history of Image:Fate of Norns.jpg, which should be a perfectly standard fair use album cover. The image was first uploaded with a {{Don't know}} tag, orphaned by OrphanBot, then retagged as {{albumcover}} but then, being still orphaned, tagged as {{or-fu}} by Roomba. I was about to delete it per CSD I5 when I noticed something funny was going on. If I'd been slightly less attentive (and with a backlog of about 1600 week-old orphan fair use images, one can't expect too much attention from admins) the image would've been deleted (again).

I'm not sure what the best way to avoid such situations would be, but I though I'd bring this to your attention. I'd tentatively suggest that Roomba should not tag images as or-fu if they've been previously orphaned by OrphanBot and now have a valid tag. Of course, it'd also be nice if OrphanBot could watch the images it has orphaned and restore them if a valid tag was provided.

(Posted to both User talk:Gmaxwell and User talk:Carnildo.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

COPYRIGHT BOT???

Your bot red flagged some images that I forgot to tag, how do I put a tag on it after I've uploaded them? The two news article scans are copyrighted to Bay Currents Newspaper but are free to use. Please help me. EZZIE 23:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Go to Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags and find the appropriate one for the image. To bring up the image description page, click on the image or a link to the image. Click "Edit this page", and replace the existing tag with the new tag. --Carnildo 06:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much! EZZIE 07:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

page move

Hey, there was a discussion about moving the questions page to Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions from Misplaced Pages:Image legality questions. Anyway, the page is moved and all the templates are changed, can you change the bot's message whenever you get a chance? The old page is a redirect of course so it's not urgent :) Thanks. - cohesion 06:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I just finished updating the messages. --Carnildo 06:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Images

Hi, a while ago I uploaded this picture of George Stroumboulopoulos, did it wrong and OrphanBot deleted it(rightfully). Thing is, I still don't really get how you figure out what the copyright status of a picture is. It's just so confusing with that huge long list of copyrights. Does that make sense? Can you help? witchbaby 21:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Hail botmeister

Any chance of your bot removing 'fair use' images from templates and userspace and posting explanations on talk pages? --Doc 21:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

If you can point me to a list of such images to work from. Category:Fair use images contains upwards of 150,000 images, and most of them aren't a problem. It would take the bot over two weeks to simply go through the category and check each image individually, and I don't have enough free disk space on my computer to host a full mirror of the English Misplaced Pages.

The bot can turn inlined images on talk pages into image links, and remove images from user pages and category descriptions. It can't remove images from templates, because doing so will often break template formatting.

This work would be done under the FairuseBot account. --Carnildo 22:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:CSD expansion

That idea sounds vaguely familiar. In any case, I suspect that it may turn into something that needs a top-down push, but we'll see. Jkelly 02:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I brought it up earlier, but it got lost in a fight over speedy-deletion of userboxes. --Carnildo 02:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair use bot

I have a complaint! ... It didn't remove enough. ;) on Image:KanishkaI.jpg it was also linked from template Template:Greco-Buddhist_art. I removed it by hand, but it left me wondering if it was a feature or a bug that it wasn't removed by the bot. --Gmaxwell 02:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The bot doesn't touch templates because they're too easy to mess up. Instead, it logs a note on its talk page so I can remove the image by hand. --Carnildo 03:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

J2000 and Julian Dates

Regarding your edit to J2000, the epoch is with respect to a given Julian date. Is this not thus related to the Julian calendar? Not an expert (just play one at work), so thought I'd ask before reverting. Thanks! MFago 02:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Julian Date and Julian Calendar are two different things. The only relation between the two besides the name is that the proleptic Julian calendar was used to define the zero point for Julian dates. --Carnildo 03:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

Image Red-Flagged

Why did you red-flag my image? I took the picture and uploaded it myself and changed the tag so that it readL May Use for NON-COMMERCIAL USE--I don't see why that calls for a speedy deletion. Ever since your bot red-flagged my first image, all my pages and images are getting looked at. This is pretty discouraging. EZZIE 06:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you RED-FLAGGED every single one of my original photographs! Misplaced Pages is really the wrong thing for me I'm thinking. I came here to share information and images with the world and this is how I'm treated. EZZIE 07:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is a free content encyclopedia. This means that anyone can re-use the content for whatever they want, so long as they follow the terms of the GFDL. Permitting commercial use is part of this: among other things, it allows answers.com to integrate Misplaced Pages content with their knowlegebase, and it allows the German Misplaced Pages to raise funds by selling CDs with the encyclopedia on them.

And it's not just you that's getting a close look. I'm hoping that every one of the 450,000 or so images will be checked out in the near future: many of them shouldn't have been uploaded in the first place. --Carnildo 07:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Please note that images currently in use in wikiarticles should not be speedied. Please try again at Misplaced Pages:Images for deletion. Or simply re-tag the images with sth more acceptable. -- PFHLai 08:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

There's no such policy. But since you insist, I've listed all five on IFD. --Carnildo 08:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not a policy. But we should not be creating broken links in wikiarticles by speedying any images. Why not ask the photographer and uploader to re-tag ? Don't forget to add "{{subst:Idw|" to the uploader's talkpage, as per instructions on {{ifd}}. -- PFHLai 09:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

So remove the images from articles before you click the "delete" button. It can't be that hard, can it? --Carnildo 17:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Carnildo, it's not about easy or hard. It's as easy as following all three steps listed in the ifd template. While Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion#Images/Media says "Please remove images from any pages they are used in before marking them for speedy deletion.", there's more to just avoiding broken links in articles. I would remove the images from articles if the problems were copyvio or vandalism. But I'm certainly not doing that when the uploader is an active contributor in Misplaced Pages, certainly not without consultation, when the images can simply be re-tagged. I, too, have the same goal of getting an absolutely free Misplaced Pages (eventually), but I am not going to help one colleague and offend another colleague by simply doing the easy thing. Also, deleted images are lost from the wikiserver permanently and cannot be undeleted. Quality of the images in question aside, I'd rather not delete any useful images till I have to (or till better images are available). -- PFHLai 20:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Just found out that those images have been re-tagged "Copyrighted, but No rights reserved" by the uploader. Is this good enough for you ? -- PFHLai 00:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Fine with me. --Carnildo 03:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Old photographs and Art images

I know the work you're doing has to be done, and almost all of it deals with images that really have to go. But I find a smattering of pre-1923 photographs and artwork that was painted by artists who have been dead 50 or more years, that is only lacking a source (and sometimes has been mistagged). I have had a fair amount of success finding sources for such work, and restoring them to their articles. It would be easier to do before your bot does its thing than after, though, so if you notice that you're dealing with such images, could you leave me a note and give me a day or two before you pull the trigger and let me see if I can save us both some trouble? TIA, -- Mwanner | Talk 00:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

If I see any, I'll let you know. However, the bot's work is almost entirely automated, and I don't look at more than a couple percent of the images it deals with. You'd have better luck talking to the people who do most of the tagging, such as at Misplaced Pages:Untagged images. --Carnildo 02:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense. Thanks, -- Mwanner | Talk 02:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Snail image

Reason: upload should have been to commons, where said template exists. Thanks for pointing this out to me. David.Monniaux 01:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe your bot made an honest mistake in removing 20 images

Hello,

I just reviewed the wikipedia article I have written at length at http://en.wikipedia.org/Aranycsapat, and to my suprise I found 20 very legal images removed from the article. As I might have stated before, I do not know if there was a copyright issue with those images or not but I listed the urls from where they came and that is what I believed wikipedia required. As a second comment, I've have never had those images removed before and they were posted for much longer than that the 7 prohabitionary days, all those images were there for months before you decided to remove them. Please kindly resubmit them as I believe honestly that you're orphan image removing bot made an honest mistake. Please contact me if you need further details on where I downloaded those images. Thank you.

user: Gallopingmajor

It looks fine to me. Misplaced Pages requires two things for an image to be used: the source information, and an indication of the copyright status. Images on Misplaced Pages must be licensed under a free license by the creator/copyright holder, or in the public domain, or usable under the doctrine of fair use. I don't speak Dutch, but a Babelfish translation of doesn't lead me to believe that the images from that website are in the public domain or under any sort of free license, and I don't think any of them qualify for fair use. Also, lack of a copyright statement does not mean that an image is not copyrighted. --Carnildo 06:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. New users should follow the directions. As part of my involvement with the Misplaced Pages Welcoming Committee, I'll be soon coming up with a message for new user's who have problems with their images being deleted. --ElectricEye 16:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Tupac Shakur

I updated the featured article candidate Tupac Shakur, to reflect yours and other reviewers' feedback. Thank you.SqlPac 17:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

posssible OrphanBot bug

It looks like OrphanBot removes images linked to in comments, resulting in nested comments. See this diff for an example. SpuriousQ 07:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I've modified the bot to spot that sort of thing. --Carnildo 21:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

AFD

Hi, you may remember that you voted to delete List_of_non-instrumental_songs_with_titles_that_do_not_appear_in_the_lyrics but the AFD failed, well the list has grown even more and is now completely unmanageable, so I have nominated it again - just thought I'd let you know. TH 15:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Orphanbot

You have a funny bot, but I think it is a good thing. ^_^ Waikiki!!! --ElectricEye 16:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Did this break Orphanbot's search string matching? I tried to accomodate Orphanbot in the change. Jkelly 05:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Nope. The important parts of the tag didn't change, and none of the added bits will confuse it. --Carnildo 06:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

There is some discussion at Template_talk:No_license#Extending_template where your input would be helpful, at the very least to answer the practical question of whether or not a bot could be run to orphan images with no rationale and use that as the method for bringing those images back into our cleanup processes. Thanks. Jkelly 16:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Heya... FairuseBot has removed my image from goatse.cx!

Why is that? It has a valid fair use rationale, and it's not going to be deleted. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The image was tagged as {{fair use disputed}}, and there hadn't been any discussion for over a week. If you think it's fair use, put it back and untag it -- FairuseBot will never remove the same image twice (or if it does, it's a bug). --Carnildo 08:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Cheers, I wondered how it worked... good idea! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

FairuseBot made a mistake: Image:Musashimaru.jpg

FairUseBot needs tweaking: going from your above comments, it will remove an image with {{fair use disputed}} if there's been no discussion for a week. That incorrectly implies that the disputing side has won the discussion. On the above image (which was on my watchlist in case there was more discussion), the last word was mine on the talk page (since the orignal rationale wasn't too strong, legally it's not a strong argument; the person who tagged the photo didn't think strong enough to break the original links) --although to be fair I left it open, since I figured it would be rude to just take down the {{fair use disputed}} and be a jerk. However, now with FairUseBot on the prowl and making the assumption that any discussion that's not gone on for a week is somehow "won" by the original tagger. This is like the Napoleanic Code. Is there a way to tweak this so it at least sees that there's discussion on a talk page? In cases like this, where there is dispute, I would assume a human should make a judgement. Although letting FairUseBot run willy-nilly on tagged and undisputed items, in turn, is flawed because it assumes that (1) the person who tagged it was correct and (2) people click on all photos in articles to check. Bobak 16:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, in Image:Uday and double.jpg, the edit history shows the person who tagged it never gave reason for why he took one tag and split it into the two he/she decided to split it into. That image is a very strong candidate for fair use, but it appears the user who added the two tags was just trying to be safe and probably didn't know that it could get auto-deleted by FairUseBot (otherwise there would've been a rational on the talk page or wherever). Bobak 16:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Is it safe to edit?

For the whole scandal, see http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=331

Thank you, but no. I prefer to get my information from reliable sources. --Carnildo 21:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Orphanbot & optipng

Hello, I use to optimize ever png file I stumble upon. I use optipng, reducing the size of the file without any loss in quality (saving bandwith and loading time) and leave the comment optimized using optipng.… Now what bugs me is that I'm confronted with entries to my talk page like Image Tagging for Image:Ddonpachi.png, Image Tagging for Image:Ddonpachi2.png, etc… Although I'm obviously not the creator of the file and have no idea where it comes from. Couldn't you please (make the bot) add the entries to the talk page of the liable user instead? --elias.hc 09:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It's probably best in general for the bot to notify everyone who has contributed to the image, especially since I can't think of any simple way for the bot to tell "trivial" changes like yours from more substantial ones. That said, I'd expect the bot has (or could be made to have) a "whitelist" of users that do not need to be notified. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 10:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Is it any helpful (in telling the difference between trivial and substantial changes) that the descriptions of the optimized images I upload are always the same (optimized using optipng.)? Because a whitelist sounds like an overkill to me - Orphanbot has notified me of missing tags for which I was responsible in the past, since I do also create images myself… --elias.hc 11:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Very much so. OrphanBot already detects reverts, and won't notify the reverting user, or the user who uploaded the now-reverted version. I can add your edit summary to the list of things that it doesn't count as uploads when figuring out the most recent uploader. --Carnildo 18:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I've updated the bot to recognize "optimized using optipng" and "optimized using PNGCrusher" as meaning the uploader isn't uploading a new image. Tell me if it isn't working. --Carnildo 08:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a million. --elias.hc 11:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to work: the talk // the image --elias.hc 18:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Found and fixed the bug: OrphanBot had eliminated all uploaders as being the "original" uploader, so it defaulted to notifying the most recent one. Thanks for reporting it. --Carnildo 21:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, it happened again… the talk // the image --elias.hc 15:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Human error this time. OrphanBot's new-upload tagging runs on a different computer than the existing-image routine, and I'd forgotten to copy the updated code over. --Carnildo 18:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Orphanbot request

user:Unisouth has uploaded a number of photos labeled as from www.semg.org and www.semg.org.uk, usually using {{norightsreserved}}. All of these images are from www.semg.org.uk who have not released any rights to the images. If possible I would appreciate it if you could tag all of them apropriately as I am not certain how or where to list images with wrong licenses.

Cheers, Thryduulf 20:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I've just noticed that he has also uploded photos from http://www.havant.gov.uk, which are all copyright to them unless explicitly stated. As you understand image licensing please could you have a look at all his images and tag as necessary. Thanks. Thryduulf 20:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Approvals group

Just wanted to let you know that I have removed references to the approvals group from both the main bots page and the approvals page. See Misplaced Pages Talk:Bots for my reasoning. Pegasus1138 ---- 00:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:2001lunarbay.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:2001lunarbay.jpg. Misplaced Pages gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Misplaced Pages, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

• Misplaced Pages:Image use policy
• Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 00:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. My mistake. Missed taging that one somehow. fixed it. Thanks. -- Jason Palpatine 01:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello,

Thank you Carnildo. You just stripped my article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/Aranycsapat ) of all its images. Some of those old photographs no longer have licenses as the photographer may have passed and there is no way of knowing. Secondly, I supplied all the images contained in the article the urls and source information but still you removed all. I've have never had those images removed before and they were posted for much longer than that the 7 prohabitionary days. The vast majority of those images therefore were there for 5 to 6 months before you decided to remove them! Please kindly resubmit them as soon as you can, or if that is not possible then reply back to me so we can move to remove the entire article altogether if this is what wikipedia is all about. Thank you.

user: Gallopingmajor

Question about...

Hello. You tagged the article Stian Arnesen as lacking sources. I was wondering what on that page would you say needs a source, because appearances in bands are quite obvious. And do keep in mind that this is pretty much unsourcable considering where he comes from, and that he doesn't have an official website. Thank you! Death2 20:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The whole thing needs referencing. Right now, there's no way to tell if the article is true, or if it's simply something that a couple of bored middle-school students made up during lunch. See Misplaced Pages:Verifiability for Misplaced Pages's policy on this. --Carnildo 21:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I can find a couple of references and throw out the Star Wars thing and then you can take a look at it. It's not a launch break joke... Refernces coming soon. Thanks! Death2 21:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok. This is THE BEST I can do. And you really have to understand that there is no way to verify this information any better than this. Anybody who listens to this bands is going to say "Yeah, it's true. He's the man!". I know it doesn't go like that but... Besides the name found on a couple of websites....(I don't have original cd's so I cannot say under what name he is credited). Hope this is satisfying! Bye. Death2 22:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

It's better than nothing. At least now there's evidence that he exists, and that he's involved in at least some of the bands he's claimed to have been part of. --Carnildo 22:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Just to bother you a little more, since there is mainly mentions of his name in the bands with no real reference, there are some links I added to The Kovenant (band) page. Through them it can be veryfied that Nagash, Lex Icon is a member of those bands. Thank you for your patience! This message will not self destruct in one billion years! Death2 23:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

preventing OrphanBot notification

Hi Carnildo. How does OrphanBot determine whether a user has been notified about a particular image? Often I write personalized messages to uploaders with numerous problem uploads, and would like to avoid them being overshadowed by redundant warnings. Is including a link to an image in an ad-hoc message enough to prevent subsequent warnings, or does one of the subst'd templates have to be present? Best regards. ×Meegs 05:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought of this back when I was first designing OrphanBot's notification system. A simple link to the image will work, as will a non-link mention (ie, both Image:example.gif and Image:Example.gif will be seen as being notifications). --Carnildo 05:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Space Patrol image

I recently added an image to Space Patrol (1962 TV series) - I had found it on the Space Patrol entry on the Gaelic version of Misplaced Pages, so assumed that you(Misplaced Pages) were happy with the copyright there. However your autobot thing seems to have taking it and removed it - if you want I can copy all the Gaelic stuff across but will that be OK to allow the image to stay or does autobot not speak Gaelic. I had hoped that after its flagging a human would contact me so that I could ask (which has happened before).

Najeeb Halaby Image

If possible, please see the relevant discussion between User:tyomitch and myself on our respective User Talk pages regarding the copyright status of the photo used in the Najeeb Halaby article prior to having it deleted by OrphanBot. --TommyBoy 09:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Minor Orphanbot issue

Orphanbot told me I had uploaded an untagged image, Image:Wikiwings2.png. All I did was upload an optimised version over the original. I did not specify a tag as the image page retains the current info.--Drat (Talk) 12:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, I just noticed the relevant discussion above. By the way, I use a similar message on optimisation uploads, but I use the string "Optimised with OptiPNG.". Will Orphanbot accept the alternate capitalisation (and the habitual period)?--Drat (Talk) 12:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed Orphanbot restored the "no license" tag, which I removed (as there is obviously a license). I won't remove it a second time, as the same will likely happen again.--Drat (Talk) 14:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Verginasun.jpg

The image was created in black (with white background) by user Zikander under the GNU license. Apparently some admin have deleted the original page (I can't see it in Zikander's contribs). I've just coloured and re-uploaded the image under the same license. See also User_talk:Zikander#Verginasun.jpg. talk to +MATIA 13:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I must also add that I would really like to know why Zikander and me aren't shown as the creators of that image, according to the GNU license requirements (I still guess that some admin has something to do with it but I can't find out what happened). talk to +MATIA 13:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:MEP image (EP)

You edited this recently, "emphasizing the non-free status", and seem to be one of the resident experts on image copyright in general, so I hope it's all right to ask you this. Where on the copyright license does it say that modification is not permitted? It seems to say

"Copyright notice © European Communities, 1995-2005
Reproduction is authorised, provided the source is acknowledged, 
save where otherwise stated.
Where prior permission must be obtained for the reproduction or 
use of textual and multimedia information (sound, images, software, etc.), 
such permission shall cancel the above-mentioned general permission 
and shall clearly indicate any restrictions on use. "

I don't read anything about modification on there, and frankly, that seems close to a free use license. AnonEMouse 18:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

There are three things needed for a license to be considered "free":

1. It needs to permit distribution
2. It needs to permit modification and incorporation into larger works (the creation of derivative works)
3. It needs to permit distibution of derivative works

This license permits #1, but does not permit #2 (which is what permits using the image in a Misplaced Pages article), and does not permit #3 (which is what permits us to distribute Misplaced Pages, and what permits people to re-use Misplaced Pages content). --Carnildo 20:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I still don't see where it forbids modification, it just doesn't mention it. If we had to choose, since it specifically says "reproduction", not just "distribution", I would think it would allow modification, since most reproductions do inevitably modify the product and incorporate it in another context. Does such a license need to explicitly allow modification? AnonEMouse 21:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The basic copyright statement (ie, "Copyright 2004 Joe Bloggs") forbids everything except a few specific uses: giving away the one copy you have, and certain limited forms of copying as permitted under fair use or fair dealing. Any license is a modification on that to permit specific additional things, such as copying for educational purposes, or incorporation into larger works. Since the license does not say anything about modification or derivative works, those are forbidden. --Carnildo 21:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Drumguy8800 image tag

Hello, you seem to be quite wise in this department. Is there something, like the copyleft thing, or full blown copyright with usage rights, that I could use instead? For now, I've switched the wording to 'please' instead of 'you must'..

by the way, thanks for all your work in this department. drumguy8800 - speak 21:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello check this out

Hello I have made a request for comment on Kurt Leyman and I need people to sign the request and also to sign on the specific page

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kurt_Leyman

(Deng 03:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC))