Jump to content

User talk:OrphanBot

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by OrphanBot (talk | contribs) at 06:31, 5 August 2006 (Logging warning message). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

OrphanBot is a bot, a computer program designed to perform simple, repetitive tasks. Any comments should be directed to Carnildo, the owner of this bot.


Lost your image? If it was deleted due to a lack of source or copyright information, OrphanBot's probably kept a copy, and I'll willingly re-upload it for you if you can provide the source of the image and correct copyright information. Place a message on my talk page, and I'll see what I can do.

This article was previously considered for deletion. An archived record of the discussion can be found here.

Comments archived: 26 January, 2006 15 February, 2006 7 March 2006 18 March 2006 25 May 2006

Star cinema

Hey how dare you take the images in star cinema. stop doing that!


Get rid of this damn thing NOW!!!

Excuse, but this really isn't any program that deletes. It is the work of one person. My photo certainly did have a copyright and it was my own. YOU illegally deleted my photo. And I WILL inform the wikipedia staff about it. I thnk it's about time you be taken off and not allowed to come back.

Hear, hear. It takes ages to upload and this sh*t gets rid of hard work. The images I put on aren't infringing any laws, so what is the problem? Keep them on there, for god's sake.

I've just about had it with this biotch. It is destroying images that had every right to be on wikipedia and that I had worked so hard to find. If this bot continues to destroy images and articles for the sheer pleasure of its owner, the site administrators will be immediatly contacted so they can make sure that it never terrorizes again!

Please do contact them. And then maybe you can explain why you can't be bothered to follow the basic rules of uploading images. --Carnildo 07:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it normal that this thing deletes everything that its on his way? Most of my contributions are as Fair Use and with a explanation, but it keeps trying to delete them. Messhermit 13:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectly normal. You aren't bothering to indicate where you're getting the images or who created them, which is a basic requirement of Wikipedia's image use policy. --Carnildo 18:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carnildo, if I have trouble with something, than I know its too hard. Would you at least admit that your image system errors to side of deletion whereas Google errors on the side of let it up? I know you do that because you aren't rich like google, but I can't believe you defend your system. IMHO you need to get some men involved. Men solve problems like this. They fight until they get fired to fix lunatic systems like this. I like the little box-system that helped me upload. That seems new. But I put up an image and feel good only to wait 2 days and start getting speedy-delete emails? WTF. Then I have to search youtube to try and figure out how to keep a picture I took up? Insane, and you will say, "others have achieved what you fail to follow the basic horse shit procedure yadda". To that I say, you should fall on your sword Carnildo, FAIL.




You have just removed my image (right) Image:reddoglogo2.jpg, though I indicated that I had the copyright & am therefore entitled to use it. Such sabotage is a criminal waste of my time. I posted 'Carnildo' to make it clear that this was my image, created by myself. I only upload images that are my property.I don't have time or energy to keep chasing this stuff up. Please stop wrecking my entries or I'll stop making contributions . Curiousexplorer 10:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You uploaded it, and you may have the copyright to it, but you neglected to indicate what terms you were licensing it under. This is a basic requirement of uploading images on Wikipedia. I note you say you have permission to use it on Wikipedia, but this isn't good enough -- you need to get permission to release the image under a free license. --Carnildo 19:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is my last edit EVER to Wikipedia. No point when work is mindlessly deleted. Pictures tht I OWN that are over 100 years old were jsut deleted. bye. - gs

This thing sucks. It does way more harm than good. Ever heard of fair use, guy? A case-by-case process would work better. You err on the side of less information. That's bad for Wikipedia. BOT SUCKS!!!

I am sorry that Carnildo has such an inferiority complex and feels he is contributing to the project by operating this horrible bot that everybody hates. Yeah, Carnildo, you're getting your name out there and I hope that makes you feel good about yourself, but you're just destroying information by running this sorry thing. juppiter iorno #c 06:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This bot is a very useful tool in battling the inability of a large number of people with the inability to source or tag correctly. The JPS 12:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like this Bot, it is very silly and makes repetitive edits which shouldn't be repetitive, but should be made on a case by case basis. Benjaminstewart05 17:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree I think this bot should not be allowed to opperate as it is obviously largely flawed. SirGrant 05:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You guys really need to stop this harrastment. This is getting out of my hands. If you guys want to harrast someone's bot, then go try someone else's bot. I don't know what's going on though, but please stop. ~~Girla PurpleHeart 10:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hate this motherfucjer, aswell.

STOP WITH THIS!!! I WOULD NEVER STEAL ANY PICTURES! OF COURSE, THE CATEGORY DOESN'T FIT OF WHERE I FOUND PICS! I ALWAYS PUT 'SOMEWHERE'! Please, the internet as Google, that's where I mostly find it. Let me just have one picture of Sean Faris on his page, please! Just one! I don't steal it, you know that I am going to fill out the copyright thing right as the best as I can! Peace, no war. I just want one image on Sean's profile. --Mc2006 07:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)MC2006[reply]

This is a terrible bot. It is the responsibility of the user to take care of their images, not to entrust a bot with attempting to take care of it whilst making a huge nuisance. huntersquid 15:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is everyone so mad at good ol' OrphanBot here? It's just trying to make Wikipedia not suck. Imagine if someone stole your image from your website and just slapped it on there without a Copyright tag? Sure, I've had a few images deleted by it, but really, it does more good than harm...The Runescape Junkie 20:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to hit something if this damn bot doesn't fuck off right now! What a stupid name for a bot, and it's annoying me by deleting my images!John Fry 16:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly said where the images came from on the image's page. If you also want it to have one of your template tags on it, go ahead and add one. --Arctic Gnome 17:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An incredibly annoying bot sombody please kill this piece of trash now.

What a jerk you are, this stupid bot ruins the Tales of Symphonia page by claiming that I need to know where Kawaii Dream got their Source from? HOW THE FUCK AM I SUPPOSED TO KNOW THAT? Kosuke Fujishima did the artwork you tinfoiled trash heap.--Jack Cox 05:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to jump on the band wagon and say I agree on what a piece of shit this bot is Aspensti 13:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This poor bot is just doing its job people -- I uploaded a fair use image but took the time to read about what i had to do before i uploaded it. All's well that ends well. Keep up the hard work! Australian Matt 11:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Ok, the bot is doing its job. But I'm in a situation where I've just taken a break from wikipedia. I always use the correct attributions and tags for my images, but the tags have changed while I was away and this bot (and others) wants to delete my images. Its a little annoying that I did the right thing, but because I wasn't coming in every week to check, my stuff is deleted because of a change that was out of my control. AnAn 08:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I have specified the copyright of several pictures yet this moronic robot continues to delete them Guess who i am 09:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully it'll adapt to the drop-down license list Australian Matt 04:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't understand. The picture I posted of Jean Smart as Lil in "Last Summer at Bluefish Cove" was taken for publicity purposes and the original copyright belongs to the production company, which is The Glines. But it's offered to the press, then it becomes public domain. Please advise.

I have to agree 100%. I posted an image and clearly tagged it as a picture that I had taken myself and owned. This bot deleted it anyway. This bot goes beyond deleting images that are not properly tagged. It deletes images that are appropriately tagged. How can this 'Carnildo' clown, honestly believe that his bot is working correctly when multiple users have the exact same complaints. Get off of your high horse Carnildo, get a real life, stop playing net-cop with a defective bot, and fix this defective bot or deactivate it.

This bot is CRAZY!!! Just shut the darn thing down!--Snowman Guy (talk) 18:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This bot does more harm than good. Seriously. Get rid of it. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove my image of Kathryn Leigh Scott from DS?

I'm MAD at you for removing my image of KLS from DS??? WTH you remove it???? Why you did it???????????????????????

Spencer Karter

What image are you referring to? --Carnildo 08:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on Muhammad

Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to Muhammad. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

Additionally, please do not erase such warnings from your talk page. Thanks.Timothy Usher 06:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does this guy know it's a bot? MichaelBillington 01:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does it matter? Either way, I haven't laughed this hard all week. :D
I'm supposing it's checked sometimes by Carnildo, so Timothy Usher isn't rambling to himself. Xainz 04:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not specifying the source?!

Are you nuts?! It's logo! L-O-G-O! I have no idea who created it! You know what... If you tell me who created, let's say, W.I.T.C.H. logo, I'll maybe tell you who created this! As for the source, I got it from Modra Lasta's website [[1]]. See? No "copyright violation". Don't do such stupid thing ever again! I wouldn't like to consider you an idiot! Angry Keaze



Phase distortion synthesis

Your bot have mindlessly vandalized the article on Phase distortion synthesis. The images are series of sine wawes without any specific creator except for the mathematical sine function. Please revert! 80.216.124.251 17:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This damn bot

I uploaded the image correctly following all the usual rules. Yet somehow when it appeared the info was gone and this godddamn bot had tagged it as uncategorised. Instead of deleting images would someone delete this damned bot? It regularly states that images with correct information doesn't have the information there in black and white, leaves messages on pages telling people that they are responsible for uploading images they never uploaded (it held me responsible for an image simply because I corrected a spelling in the file months earlier) and just gets on everyone's nerves. Accurate and reliable it ain't. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 21:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Hmm...It seems a useful tool but I had the same experience too. I corrected a spelling on one image page and a month later it held me responsible for uploading it! Ah well, musn't grumble. Craigy (talk) 22:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. My image Image:Lars ulrich diagram.JPG says it's not explained why it's under fair use. We have to block it.

Micoolio101 (talk)

I understand the reasoning behind the creation of this bot. But at this stage it is doing far more harm than good. It

  • blames users who have nothing to do with an image for uploading it, even though all they did was revert vandalism, or correct a spelling, or something on that scale.
  • insists that images that clearly and obviously have a source stated don't have a source.
  • removes images because of simple genuine download errors by users who were new to the system, instead of helping fix their errors. So large numbers of needed and legitimate images have been unnecessarily deleted where all that was needed was a minor change was need. I saw one image some time ago that was deleted because the user made a spelling mistake and it didn't recognise the source.

A far more sensible approach would be to catalogue problem images with specific problem teams to see can they source images, instead of blanket deletions, accusations of bad faith against blameless editors, etc. At this stage this infernal, faulty bot is driving away good editors, costing us good pictures, and pissing off thousands of contributors. It is only a matter of time before some admins get some fed up of the damn thing (and a lot of us are really really fed up of it) they either block or delete it. If and when that it done, I will 100% support that action. The creator was trying to do the right thing. But at this stage a bot on its own that makes more mistakes than it gets right, is causing too much damage. We need to devise a system. Maybe a bot to remove images to wikiproject teams who are expert in certain areas and who can try to fix the image and make it usuable — trace its origins, establish its legal status, fix file errors, etc. But things cannot go on as they are doing. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]

I nominate that the bot be permanently disabled. It's bad enough that people are sometimes too lazy to do things, but to regulate simple tasks to a bot that causes more aggrivation than helping is a big turn-off.--293.xx.xxx.xx 20:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Images need to be removed

Hi there, could you removed the following images? Thanks.

Image:Jinzhou3.jpg Image:Jinzhou6.jpg Image:Jinzhou4.jpg Image: Jinzhou0.jpg‎ Image: Bijiashan.gif‎ Image: Mtbijiashan.gif‎ Image: Guangjitower0.jpg‎

What we have here is a failure to communicate

Ever heard of talking to people? Surely it would be better if OrphanBot was to post something on the article's talk page so that people who have the pages on their watchlist are able to correct the problem. It seems to me preferable to just deleting the picture. Lurker 13:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. OrphanBot deletes a ton of images that could pretty obviously be tagged as either public domain or fair use. Certainly it deletes a lot of images where the chances of wikipedia running into actual problems from copyright holders is slim to none - is the fact that an image of Napoleon III (Image:NPIII.jpg) is not tagged really something which we need a bot to go about and automatically remove? That image would never in a million years get us into actual trouble. For situations like that, we should attempt to communicate with the person who uploaded the image in the first place. Deletion shouldn't be the option of first resort. john k 10:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Micoolio101/Supporters in the death of OrphanBot was submitted to deletion review, 217.251.173.136 13:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Backwards ordering causes waste

To quote User:OrphanBot:

2. OrphanBot removes images with certain tags from articles using them.
3. OrphanBot notifies the presumed uploader of the impending deletion.

This is backwards in multiple ways. It should (1) notify, (2) wait until the 7 days or whatever are up and the image has been deleted, then (3) remove the image from articles.

It's a waste of many people's time and resources to remove them from articles before it's certain the image is gone. Also at the moment I can't see a significant drawback to implementing the process I've described.

¦ Reisio 08:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Log

Beginning set at 1152250208 for task 'copyright'

Beginning set at 1152264314 for task 'copyright'

Beginning set at 1152264420 for task 'copyright'

Beginning set at 1152336607 for task 'source'

Beginning set at 1152423008 for task 'copyright'

Beginning set at 1152433863 for task 'copyright'

Beginning set at 1152433971 for task 'copyright'

Beginning set at 1152595808 for task 'source'

Beginning set at 1152608624 for task 'source'

Beginning set at 1152611083 for task 'source'

Beginning set at 1152611158 for task 'source'

Beginning set at 1152682208 for task 'copyright'

Beginning set at 1152738230 for task 'copyright'

Beginning set at 1152738318 for task 'copyright'

Beginning set at 1152768608 for task 'source'

Beginning set at 1152781325 for task 'source'

Beginning set at 1152783130 for task 'source'

Beginning set at 1152783209 for task 'source'

Beginning set at 1152855008 for task 'copyright'
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:OrphanBot&oldid=67782373"