Test edit, Gnome, you are not bad, but I must do this any way.
THIS IS NOT REAL, IS ONLY A TEST BY THE BOT OPERATER Eagle ( talk) ( desk) 20:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
TEST IS SUCCESSFUL. Code is working perfectly. Eagle ( talk) ( desk) 20:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
IT IS NOT OPERATING
thanks for a completed trial run Betacommand ( talk • contribs • Bot) 04:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Per User:Alexwcovington page directive #1, the following edit is being returned to you:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Please see User talk:Eagle 101#Bot request. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Any chance anybody ! :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 16:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
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).
[2] [3] Kotepho 19:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hi, if you want just delete those images as I have no use for them. Thanks. Mindys12345 04:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
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
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
I have reverted this edit, it was only discussion about and linking to the image. -- Reaper X 17:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
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.
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:
Thanks for this fast respons. I studied the criteria and it seems I have some things to do:
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)
So I have to remove the term category:Systems engineer out of the image-document? - Mdd 19:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Please restore my userpage Richard W.M. Jones 21:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Please don't edit my userspace without letting me know first. Thanks. —Jo nMo ore 15:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Can this bot please be fixed or stopped someday? — The Storm Surfer 05:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Why did you delete an album cover which is classified as an album cover? Steelbeard1 11:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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.jpg -->|[[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)
"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)"
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)
[12]. — METS501 ( talk) 01:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
then remove the image!! don't spam my talk page, please (several times) -- TheFEARgod ( Ч) 12:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
It did this because the image is in Template:Kim Possible. It's certainly a malfunction though. -- NE2 15:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
I love that image. :( -- Brenton.eccles 03:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Cheers. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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!!!
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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))
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)
Gnome or its owner...please stop removing images with valid image tags. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 02:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
The coat-of-arms was granted to Estonia sometime around 1219. Estonian copyright law explicitly exludes coats-of-arms from copyright.
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)
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.
This edit is just annoying. /(Image:|Bild:)?Imagename/g like this does not work. Kotepho 06:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
-- Wer2chosen 15:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
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).
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)
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)
Hey bot, give my complements to your boss; you are a very fine bot! 84.87.138.105 20:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
What kinda images do you remove on user pages, talk pages and a few more and why? TobytheTramEngine 19:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
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)
Stop! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.177.228.89 ( talk) 18:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
turn this thing off! it messed up some important user pages! 68.47.252.120 20:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
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)
The license tag says this 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)
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)
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)
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)