User talk:OsamaK/Archive 2

Bot problem
Hi, I appreciate that this is a bot, but it has flagged up 2 images I've contributed as suitable for deletion due to lacking source when i've clearly stated that they are self made. and are the examples. I've contributed a lot of self made logos with the same basic summary stating they are self made, so it is likely this will continue to happen. Emoscopes Talk 18:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your prompt reply and resolution! Emoscopes Talk 18:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Bot
Your bot has sent an image deletion message to me in error on the Benedictine High School page. The image is acceptable, double check for yourself.Ryan01ud 18:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's REALLY without source!--OsamaK 18:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I fixed the image source, everything is cool now, please remove the image deletion tag. Thanks, Ryan01ud 18:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

What else do I need?
I believe I have already put in a copyright notice and release. What else needs to be done, and how?? image:BESLogo.jpgDavidPickett 18:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Wrongly recieved message
I was recently told that I had uploaded an image... Which I hadn't, I merely reverted it during a vandal attack... Why then was I contacted? Hole in the wall 21:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I have had the same problem too (especially after reverting the same vandal's attacks), and it's annoying me. Is it possible for the bot (or any bot on Wikipedia that does this, although I know you are not in control of them) to at least put emphasis on the original uploader? It's annoying when I get a bunch of image/media problems listed on my talk page only because I reverted an image. --GVOLTT How's my editing?\My contribs 23:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bigtennetworklogo.jpeg
I just got a message about this image from the bot, but I didn't upload it. I just cropped out some white area outside of the image, and replaced it. I think it should only go to the original uploader. hmwith talk  02:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:9/11 images
I have removed the CfD notice from Category:9/11 images. You have not created an entry for discussion (Category:9/11 images) at Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 12. Feel free to restart the discussion if you feel it is necessary. -- Petri Krohn 05:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by that?
Image source problem with Image:BESLogo.jpg Image Copyright problem

This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:BESLogo.jpg. The file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as article name or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner. OsamaKBOT 16:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It's REALLY without source!--OsamaK 18:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

What do I need to do, and how?? If you look at 30 August 2007 version, I already had Copyright tag and attribution.

ThanksDavidPickett 06:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Logo deletion??? Logos are fair-use!!!
Your bot wants to delete automatically the image:. It is a logo and hence it has fair use status as mentioned in the copyright tag. It has no source, so? It's just a logo, infinitely reproduced along the net and real world images!

Anyhow, since when a bot can delete images without intervention of an administrator? It's absolutely abusive. One thing would be that the bot nominates the image for deletion, even for speedy deletion... but the ultimate decission must be human. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sugaar (talk • contribs) 08:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Logos
Please have your bot to skip tagging logos as unsourced -- they are clearly within Fair Use, and logos do not require source information (they're logos). See Image:BayNetworks.jpg. Thanks. /Blaxthos 16:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I added additional information about the Analogic Corporation LOGO, Image:Analogic logo.png, which is clearly fair use. Please fix your BOT because the additional information should not be necessary. Ee signal 18:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * What right do you have to do this? There is nothing wrong with my logo image. Being bold is one thing, but having a bot that recklessly annoys everyone with its boldness is another Image:BankSA logo.gif Muzzamo 01:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

OsamaKBOT's text is incorrect
In this edit OsamaKBot claimed "You have recently uploaded Image:AWplanet logo.png." I'm not sure I'd call Image:AWplanet_logo.png February "recently." If the bot is processing older images, you may want to change the text to more accurately reflect the situation. — Alan De Smet | Talk 03:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Logos (again)
I am sorry, but I'll have to add my voice to the complaints already expressed. Logos are logos and all relevant info is provided. Especially rare logos of older companies are valuable information and its incomprehensible that they might be deleted, going to such lengths about source information etc. etc. Please make all necessary adjustments. Skartsis 09:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

So, how do you give the source of a logo that will make this bot happy???
Your bot is treatening two graphics that I uploaded. Azdd-250.jpg and Azdd 2007 teams.jpg. Do I need to do a tag to identify these or just putting a paragraph titled "Source". Documentation is not clear on how to do this. Some of us are new at this. Recnet 17:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Warning concerning logos
Hi Osama, your bot warned me (incorrectly, by the way: it should have warned the original uploader) about an image without a source. However, the image is a logo (as says the copyright tag). According to our image use policy all images need "Source: The copyright holder of the image or URL of the web page the image came from". Obviously, the copyright holder of a logo is the organisation described in the caption: here, "British Board of Film Classification logo". I also notice I'm not the first editor confronted with this problem. May I strongly suggest you avoid tagging and deleting images with the logo template where the namùe of the organisation/product is given, because it would be a shame to lose an otherwise useful bot. yandman 19:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Yandman! I think warning all uploader is the best (sometime source should be given from last one, because he upload different version). If you read Di-no source it says : Source information must be provided so that the copyright status can be verified by others.. Thanks!--OsamaK 19:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying Osama. If you read the image description, it says "British Board of Film Classification logo". The source of the image is therefore the British Board of Film Classification, as stated (policy: "Source: The copyright holder of the image"). I know the uploader might not have formatted this information perfectly, but it's not worth deleting an image for a stylistic problem. yandman  21:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the logos are self-sourcing. When the image is identified "X is a logo of Y," there is no missing relevant information regarding the copyright status of the logo that could change our fair use claim for using it. Tagging them as unsourced is completely unproductive. Postdlf 21:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid the bot is approved for its task, and is doing it correctly. For all non-free content, the elements of the WP:NFCC non-free use rationale must be put into a machine-readable format per the Foundation's licensing resolution on non-free content. What is so hard about adding a line to show from where the image was obtained? Also, if you read non-free logo, the uploader is specifically instructed in that template what requirements have to be fulfilled. It's not that hard to understand. Videmus Omnia Talk  00:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The difficulty comes when a bot tags hundreds of images in a matter of minutes that were uploaded over a period of years (and in compliance with then-existing procedures), without regard to whether the substantive use of the images is actually permissible. I have no objection to migrating the image descriptions over to the "machine-readable format," but there's no call for making it a panicky speedy deletion fire alarm.  The point is supposedly to ensure that the "copyright status can be verified by others."  This obviously can be done whenever the organization that the logo represents is identified, regardless of whether one further states "I scanned their brochure" or whatever.  Anything beyond that is not a matter of urgency.
 * You should further take a look at the recent discussions at Wikipedia talk:Non-free use rationale guideline, as it seems that you are under a misapprehension as to how the relevant Foundation statements must be interpreted and what consensus on that interpretation is. Postdlf 18:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

How does one ensure that an image tagged for deletion is not deleted once the problem with the image is corrected? -Sagefats 03:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If the problem has been corrected, the tag can be removed, which takes the image out of the dated deletion categories. Videmus Omnia Talk  03:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * thanks, i figured as much, but wanted to make sure. (and thanks to neil for blocking this bot, it needs work...)-Sagefats 04:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Bot blocked
The bot was only approved for a 50-edit trial. As it has gone way over that, I have blocked it until it is fully approved. Neil  ム  10:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Notifying user of warning
Courtesy dictates that a notification be placed on the users talk page if a warning tag is placed on an image the user has uploaded. - Bob 11:18 September 17, 2007 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 18:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Bot problems
I'm not sure if you've followed the various discussions that led to the block on your bot, but it might be a good idea to explain what went wrong (the 50 edit limit seems to be a good place to start) and maybe start a post where all this can be discussed and where the modifications to the bot's behaviour can be planified. Thanks. yandman 15:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If I was you, I'd stick to warning the uploaders that they need to give the information. I wouldn't put a tag on that will eventually lead to speedy deletion, because most of the time the information is there, it just hasn't been formatted correctly. Let people sort it out at their own rate. yandman  08:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Tagging error
In  instance the image page clearly indicated the source - http://www.brandsoftheworld.com  - however your bot still applied a nsd tag. Addhoc 13:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

South Korea Question
Let me preempt this question by saying that I mean no offense by the question, but I am curious. We are having a debate as to whether the people involved in killing the South Koreans were justified in their actions or not. As a Muslim, how do you feel that some people say that the perpetrators of the South Korean hostage killings were justified because the Koran tells them to kill these people? I am just curious as to your point of view. 68.47.102.75 22:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

So delete it.
I don't care. I was just screwing around. 70.92.103.13 06:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Your bot request
Hi OsamaK I wanted to let you know that Bots/Requests for approval/OsamaKBOT 4 is labeled as needing your comment. Please visit the above link to reply to the requests. Thanks! --BAGBot Talk 12:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thread at WT:NFC
Hi there. I mentioned your bot in this thread: Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Would you be able to join the discussion? One question I have is whether you could add a note telling people that add a source for an image, how to do this so that your bot will recognise that a source has been added. Thanks. Carcharoth 19:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Please desist and reverse auto-tagging of images
Will you kindly stop using your bot to auto-tag images for lack of sources, and reverse the tags you have recently added? Note, this has come up on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content.

(e.g. this edit).

We've discussed this before. See Administrators' noticeboard/Archive102. Do you have any authorization to run this bot for this purpose? Please point to it. It would help if you work with other people on these images issues. If you don't it appears that other users will and this may end up on AN/I.

Thanks, Wikidemo 20:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

No the license is with wikipedia  ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦       "Talk"? 11:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Saudi films
Hi Osama. DO you know anything about Saudi films? I created a List of Saudi Arabian films but there must be some more films and some articles needed? Could you help some time? Also the template will have actors/ direcotrs etc eventually  ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦       "Talk"? 12:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

OK no probs - I'm just trying to get a global coverage of film rather than focusing too much on Hollywood. I don't think Saudi Arabia has much of a cinema industry but I believe it has started to produce some films. I thought you might have known something - thanks anyway  ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦       "Talk"? 13:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

giant redwood
What has a picture of a giant redwood got to do with me? Has the message been sent to me by mistake? Have to say though....that is a blooming big tree! 82.23.32.26 08:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What's your username?--OsamaK 09:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I haven't used my username for about 2 years! I've actually forgotton it. I was posted the message on my Ip address talk page, with a random picture of a giant redwood lol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.32.26 (talk) 07:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:TheSans.svg


Not exactly sure what all that was about... deleting the talk page and stuff. I made a perfectly valid point: the letter 'd' is the only one missed out from the image. AGF, of course. 80.177.165.204 11:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I've just checked the logs and it doesn't seem to be you who deleted it. I will go tell the other guy. Sorry. 80.177.165.204 11:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:J J Wilsdon.JPEG
The source is in the summary section, but I'm fine with the image being deleted regardless. It is orphaned and since it is PD it is already at Commons. Regards, --Isotope23 talk 12:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Relist Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/MediaWiki talk:Licenses/en-withpermission?
I think you should. Thanks--Victor falk 13:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

You're deleting an image talk page?!
Is there really nothing better to do? -Werideatdusk33 02:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

image:bollinger.gif
Your bot deleted this image before I could intervene. I uploaded the image, whose source is irrelevant because it clearly falls under fair use for a company logo! I will re-upload the image. Any debate about the fair use status should be made by a non-bot. Veritasjohn 17:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

your bot
your bot recently posted a message to me saying i did not specify a copyright holder to an image, except I did do so. Na uf ana :  talk  23:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * i made a mistake... i fixed a problem on my talk page while at school recently, and I never signed it. Wikipedia (correctly) took the edit as a new message and I saw your bots last edit, mistaking it was the new message. I became frustrated because I vaguely remembered just fixing that page. I made this edit trying to correct a non-existent problem. B/C of their, i don't know... inhumanity, bots tend to get on my nerves. I hope you accept my apologies. Na uf ana  :  talk  01:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Fromat "image talk"
Hi and thanks for your helping. I think we don't prefer formating page. You can add db-g1 (Patent nonsense) or db-g2 (Test page). Then admins will delete them. Thanks again.--OsamaK 13:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No, we do prefer it. I used to delete them myself, but I got yelled at. Apparently deletion is too excessive – Gurch 14:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Mono project logo.svg
Thanks for uploading Image:Mono project logo.svg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

User:GreenJoe/Pics
Please don't vandalize my user page. Thank you. J 23:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Pages needing translation into English
Hello! Is there any possibility I could convince you to hang around on WP:PNT as we have a major problem figuring out what to do with articles written in Arabic. I can handle most of the other articles, but Arabic still escapes me :) Thanks! -Yupik (talk) 13:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Cairo Opera Company
Thanks for having a look at the Cairo Opera Company article. It's funny, I leave a message on your Arabic Wikipedia page, and then you have a notice about pages to translate here. It all works out... Thanks again! ZZ Claims~ Evidence 13:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Image notifications
Hello OsamaK! Thanks for notifying of all those images, as far as the image (Image:Didsbury 1905.jpg) is concerned, it was temporary and was only placed there until a substitute could be found. I must've forgot to find another version! But, could I ask why I am getting all these notifications now? Thanks. Regards, Rudget . talk  17:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay. Just wondering. I'll find all the sources [for the appropriately tagged pictures] now. Rudget . talk  17:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been requested to tell you this image, is mine. It is. I am guessing when you're referring to the BBC, you were relating to this. However, this photo [on BBC] has a lower quality and lower size, (i.e. one provided by the BBC was 400 x 320 and one uploaded 604 x 453). Thanks once again for contacting me over this. Rudget . talk  18:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

lionel ziprin
I'm sorry -- I don't understand what the problem with the photo is.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 19:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Backlog tag
I reverted the backlog tag you added to Category:Non-free images with valid backlink. It serves not functional purpose. The category does state: "In most cases these images have not been independently checked to verify that the name matches an actual article in which the image is used, that it refers to the right article in the case of multiple uses, or even that the page is an actual mainspace article (as opposed to a redirect or disambiguation)." But it does not provide any means for marking images that have been checked making the indentication of a backlog impossible. Dbiel (Talk) 04:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Palm Islands link to Swedish page
OsamaK, OKBot recently added a link to Palm Jebel Ali on the Palm Islands page. Just before that, I reverted someone's edit that did the exact same thing. The English page for the Palm Islands should not link to the Swedish page for the Palm Jebel Ali. There should only be links on the Palm Islands page for other pages that are about all three islands. There should not be a link to a specific Palm Island (ie: Jumeirah, Jebel Ali, or Deira) on the general Palm Islands page. I wanted to revert OKBot's edit, but I was afraid that the link would be added again. Thank you for your time. --Leitmanp (talk|contributions) 04:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:HardWorkinMan.jpg
The image I uploaded appears to be which appears on. It's not clear to me which (if either) of these you think should be in the image description. Please use whichever is appropriate.

Since neither Amazon nor Richard C. Passavant have any copyright claim on the image &mdash; it's owned by Brooks & Dunn or their label or someone &mdash; I don't understand how this information will help anyone "examine the copyright status".

When Amazon moves/deletes those pages, or the uploader deletes the image from Amazon, or the above links no longer work for whatever reason, is the source of the image then invalid? Would we then need to go and find/create another image of the copyrighted image? That seems like an awful lot of unnecessary work. ~ Bigr  Tex  04:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Image talk:BothHand.jpg
Why have you nominated this talk page for deletion under CSD? Admittedly its contents have no merits, but it's a talk page, and the corresponding image page Image:BothHand.jpg which is likely to get deleted if this CSD goes ahead is used in articles. If you don't like the talk page, just blank it. I'm puzzled. -- Arwel (talk) 18:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Standalone DBScanner
Hey, Just update the AWB SVN, and its in the extra's folder for you :)

—  Reedy  Boy  13:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Commons
Thank you for your note. I am familiar with Commons. However, in the case of today's image uploads, some were temporary and I deleted them, when no longer needed. As I'm not an admin on Commons, it would have made things awkward to have posted there. Tyrenius (talk) 19:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 3 of the 4 images I uploaded, I have now deleted. That I think saves a backlog, rather than creating one. Tyrenius (talk) 19:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)