User talk:BJBot/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:BJBot. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Greetings bot owner. First of all, thank you for your work.

Would it be possible to have the bot look at the original uploader of the images, not the most recent? I have gotten five messages from this bot so far, but I am not the actual uploader of any of the tagged images: all I did was revert vandalism to them, and delete the vandalised versions so this particular vandal could not revert to his bad versions again (that was his modus operandi). Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 07:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments about Image:Po-logo1.jpg It was the original logo for the U.S. Post Office. However a better image is now on the articles so it's fine to go ahead and delete it. Thanks. Americasroof

I know I know but I whant those images around, our problem on the articles they use to belong to is a problem for these well needed images. SoundPound500000 Febuary 4, 2007 11:05 a.m.

IM NOT MORE THE USER:Sins im now theUser:Envidia if you want to talk to me talk with envidia not sins

I do not understand why the link to the image on the wiki page was removed. If the image was not qualified to be posted here in the OSU wiki page, how can it still be on the wiki site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_Buckeye. Actually, this issue had been discussed before (in my talk page). If you checked carefully, the person who placed the image is MPF. If people keep deleting other people work without consciousness, it will discourage other people to contribute to the wiki pages. Regards, Ohho 12:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been on for a while, but this bot deleted dozen of images that were OK under fair use guideline - specifically dvd covers and movie posters that were properly tagged. They appeard to be OK and tagged correctly but now their gone. If you could please stop your bot from deleting my hard work it would be great. I don't have the energy to restore all that was lost. Could you please go to my messages and see the others pending delete. Steve-O 15:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello got your message, well the image is not being used so yes please go ahead and delete it. Thank you. -- Pa7 00:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:SSSN DVD Cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy). (snip)

Image:SSSN DVD Cover.jpg is a duplicate image of Image:Sheshouldasaidno.jpg, uploaded two days earlier on November 27, 2006. Please delete Image:SSSN DVD Cover.jpg.-- Jreferee 16:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

A man in Black was the one who removed those images because he is a very arrogant administrator who has no heart whatsoever and deletes images. I had alot of trouble with him and he seems to only think for himself and removes Fair Use Images. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JD2635 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

The bot tagged Image:Sprint Nextel Logo.svg. Corporate logos are OK. Make it go away. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 00:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand your desire for automation, but as implemented on Wikipedia, they appear to have a low error rate. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 05:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi! You(r bot) tagged Image:902-1.jpg as orphaned. You can delete it now, because I appear to have accidentally uploaded two versions of the same image, of which Image:ARP-1946.jpg is used here. C mon 08:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I have replaced the orpahned image with Image:FSanchez.jpg a bigger version, You can delete the orphan . Cheers Ernst Stavro Blofeld 10:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I got your message about the orphaned image, and I appreciate that Wikipedia doesn't need unused images on it. This is a favicon, and such as parameter was previously included in the website infobox template, but the template has since been updated and the favicon parameter has been removed. I understand there is currently a discussion about the inclusion of the favicon parameter on the template on the template talk page. I have no objection to you deleting if it isn't going to be used, but if the favicon parameter is put back then I think it should be there. Thanks again, and I'll leave it up to you to decide. --Jatkins 17:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

Please delete any Orphaned image that was uploaded by me, these images were uploaded by mistake.Angel,Isaac 22:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Please note the tag that I have added to Image:Martin Lell Das Forum Landmark Education.jpg, as per protocol. But thanks for the heads up about the orphaned image on my talk page. Smee 18:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for the clarification. Smee 18:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

• Thanks for the heads up about the orphaned image, Image:Leo Ryan.jpg, but I was able to find other cool images that are in the public domain as products of the United States Federal Government, so this image, though it was being used fair-use, is no longer needed. Smee 08:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

It doesn't seem like minor edits to a talk page trigger that orange "you have messages" tag at the top, so don't you think it would be better to not mark them as minor? Recury 13:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:FA Premier League.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 02:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

BJBot seems to have a bug in it. The image that was orphaned was originally uploaded by myself but since then had been 'updated' by another user to a very different image and it was this one that was removed from the FA Premier League article and replaced by another. Nevertheless, my original image is the most appropriate, so I have reverted to it and placed it back in the article. - Green Tentacle 14:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how BJBot could have detected this it is not human. BJ^Talk 23:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Well if it can detect who originally uploaded the image, surely it can tell who uploaded the latest version of the image? It's that person who should be informed, as it's their image that has been orphaned. - Green Tentacle 00:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

please delete those orphans thankyou Ernst Stavro Blofeld 14:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on Image:LaSalle Academy Logo.jpg. The image in no longer an orphan. Thanks again! Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. 17:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

as noted above, while the bot does leave a msg on the user's talk page, it fails to generate the "You have messages" banner so effectively fails in it's goal to inform the uploader/last editor. Please fix this soon, as it appears to be quite the busy bee, and could potentially delete many images without anyone knowing. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 20:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I notice on User talk:Cool Cat you say that the bot "does not have an option to exclude any people from getting the talk page warnings". Please implement such an option before continuing to use it. If users can ask other (human) users not to message them any more, then it is logical that bots such as this have a similar function. - Mark 07:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's appropriate. User notification of the orphaned status of their image is part of the CSD process, whereas notifying them allows the image to be deleted in 48 hours and without notification, the image must wait 7 days (at minimums). I don't think a user can request not to be notified on "warning" templates. They should likely care about their images or have not uploaded them in first place. Is there a policy or guideline on this? I don't think there is, and I don't think one would likely pass. Could you imagine someone saying "Don't notify me about warnings" and then you couldn't put vandalism warnings on there? Image warnings should be considered equal to those status. --MECU≈talk 14:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Dear i got two different messages from you on two topic that i uploaded this [[1]] and used it on this artilce [[2]],i do not know why i got message to link this image on it that i did before when uploded it. check this artilce where i used this pic on saddam artilce [[3]](09:15, 30 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Saddam Hussein (→Execution - hanged up) ).

2nd thing (Orphaned fair use image (Image:Eid.jpg) regarding this image check this (09:02, 29 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Image:Eid.jpg (author : Mufti Mazat(Pakistan\Karachi) Source: Book,Url: do not have, tags: Free use. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eid_ul-Adha) and here is link i used this image [[4]] . If some user do not like these images and are not using these image on artilce what i have to do then?

Khalidkhoso 20:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I've found a bug with your bot that ought to be fixed. Images such as Image:MadrasReg.gif, which have already been tagged with Template:Orphaned fairuse replaced, are being tagged again. This results in them being listed in Category:Orphaned fairuse images under two different dates. —Remember the dot (t) 05:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

To clarify: it's not neccessary to tag an image marked {{subst:orfur|new image name.ext}} with {{subst:orfud}} as well. —Remember the dot (t) 05:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

If possible, it would be really useful if this bot went through Category:Images made obsolete by an SVG version and nominated all the orphans for deletion if they haven't been nominated already. —Remember the dot (t) 01:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for the bot work, helping keep Wikipedia clean. For some reason, it tagged a linked image as an orphan. Interesting enough, on the main image page it says "No pages on the English Wikipedia link to this file", however if you click on the toolbox "What links here" the linked article shows up. Could be a wiki-bug, but can the bot check more thoroughly before tagging? The image in question is Image:Nazrac.jpg and it is linked to by page T-Mek. Thanks! Ibjoe 03:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It is because the image is actually shown on the article, just linked. Looks like Wikipedia treats those differently.↔NMajdan•talk•EditorReview 15:16, 15 February 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)} 18:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Umm... this bot thingy just came and did its thing to one of the images on the Crimson Dark article, saying it was on no article. CD is currently on an Afd (which I expect it to lose), but its not gone yet. I don't know whether this bot is designed to tag images on Afding articles, but, well I've removed it untill after the Afd is complete. It might just survive. Zaphael 08:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Recently I received a message on my talkpage that the image las palabras wasn't used in any article. This image is used in the article Las Palabras de Amor. The image has always been in this article.It's an article about a single by Queen. Jacobine 17:02, 15 February 2007

The image marked orphaned is not used in the article. Image:Queen Las Palabras De Amor.png is used. I marked the unused one as redundant (though it might be better?) to the used one. --MECU≈talk 16:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

This is in use (last time I looked today) on the Short SB5 page and in my user gallery. Why is it being flagged as orphaned and scheduled for deletion? Thanks. TraceyR 18:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

This is in use (last time I looked today) on the Short SB5 page and in my user gallery. Why is it being flagged as orphaned and scheduled for deletion? Thanks. TraceyR 18:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no problem for deleting it. In Heretic (computer game) I placed another image depicting this episode of the game which is better than this image. Fsolda 20:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

- Message -

What orphaned image, and why is Karate Quebec removed!? I'm tired of people removing my images and pages. And so many rules here, for images and pages.

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 00:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Images can become orphaned when they are replaced. In the case of a replacement image being deleted because of lack of copyright tag there is very little or no time to restore the original image before this bot deletes it. Propose doubling the deadline. Pendragon39 19:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so how do I recommend to admins that they wait another 7 days before deleting the orphan? Pendragon39

Thanks :) Pendragon39 20:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I find this name inappropriate. I'm not sad enough to try and get it deleted, but I want you to know. I'm aware it's possibly your initials, but I don't like it.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 03:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the name "BJBot" is just fine. BJ wrote it, and he operates it, so what's wrong with him wanting to name it after himself? It's his choice. —Remember the dot (t) 04:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

BJ is in fact the first two letters of my initials. I also sign 'BJ' and own the 'BJ' account. BJ^Talk 05:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, I was aware it's probably your initials, and that is fine, it just seems to me you're using that as an excuse to have what is an inappropriate series of user name accounts. Again this is not something I would challenge here, as I don't believe in moral censorship, but I do believe in self-restraint when one considers morally challengable actions.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 03:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. --MECU≈talk 04:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, Wikipedia is. See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RFC/NAME --I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 22:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Sadly indeed. If BJ won't change his name or the name of the bot voluntarily, then we're off to discussion, where I will disagree with the policy. We have article about every sexual position (I assume) and the name BJ, which is a valid real life name to call someone, is a problem? I can see the case where it wouldn't apply if the name weren't a valid real life name, such as "Missionary Style", but that doesn't apply to BJ. --MECU≈talk 23:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Under this line of the username policy "Usernames that refer to or imply sexual acts, genitalia, or sexual orientation including slang, innuendo, and double entendre." it could possibly be deleted. In the sad day that my account(s) got deleted or renamed for being a acronym for slang term for something people don't like I would just leave. Now if my name is inappropriate shouldn't BJ's Wholesale club change their name? What about Cox Communications? BJ^Talk 23:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Really I never think anything will come of this unless I run for admin, where I will get at least one oppose. But hey, I might be part of some crazy parental group PR release on why you shouldn't let your kids on Wikipedia... BJ^Talk 23:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Truthfully, no. I have been using the login 'bjweeks' for 10 or so years now but in some activities I decided to use the name BJW (my full initials), after a very short time the 'W' was nowhere to be found. Ever since 'BJ' has been my online handle. BJ^Talk 17:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Very well, I am just posting what I feel about the name.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 22:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking more about this, and it's only dirty if you already know what BJ means. Do you look at my name, MECU and go look it up in Google or WP? I doubt a kid will do the same for BJ. --MECU≈talk 18:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

On 27 January I received an automated "Orphaned fair use image" message from BJbot referring to the image TheRightStuff.png. This image (I have checked) wasn't uploaded by me - could it be a malfunction? dawkeye 18:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I went through all of your incomplete nominations from this morning. There was one that I wouldn't touch, a couple that I gave rationale for, a bunch that seemed to be self-noms where the uploader didn't know about {{db-author}}, and another bunch that are ongoing discussions in the WP:IfD backlog. Look through them and see if there is some way to further tune BJBot to not relist ongoing discussions.

This is meant as constructive criticism, I'd rather have to go through these by hand and deal with it than have them linger out there for months or years. Keep up the good work! ~ BigrTex 16:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind the talkpage message, but it is a little late. I already weighed in on the AfD before the bot left the message. I think it's a good idea tho. —  MusicMaker5376 16:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a nifty concept, and one that I expect to come in handy. Tell me, though - does the great big red button automatically ban the bot? Because I'm fighting an awful temptation to press it... --Kizor _{is in a constant state of flux} 18:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It does. Don't ban me bro. BJ^Talk 21:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

*hands start shaking* --Kizor _{is in a constant state of flux} 22:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, sorry for the article, I thought it was Alien vs. Predator: Requiem, not Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem, so sorry bro. Were cool right? --Kyonkichi 3:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh I'm fine with you deleting the article Sneazel EX. I'll even redirect it if you want.Swirlex (talk) 13:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard of this bot before, but the AfD notification is a great feature. Thanks for making this! / edg ☺ ☭ 06:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The AFD notification seems to work well and is a great idea. Any chance you could also do it for prodded articles? Since they aren't discussed, it may be even more important that the original author is aware of it (or, at least, is aware that it was deleted, and thus can better understand why or seek deletion review). I'm sure you already thought of it, just nudging you more in that direction if you weren't already working on it. Rigadoun (talk) 07:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of this bot, but it sent me a notice that "Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Giselle (Disney)" when I was the one who PRODded it. :P Might be good to have it check that, if possible. Collectonian (talk) 02:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I know. I put the tag there. There's not enough sources anyway. PhATxPnOY916 (talk) 02:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I nominated the article for deletion. Thus, I know ;-) --Edcolins (talk) 13:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I tend to agree that the image "Fabel" should be deleted. I used another picture in the article this one was first in, so don't need the image anyway. However maybe you can help me on another problem:

in Commons is "Category:1964 New York World's Fair" which all but one picture I uploaded. Apparently I must have made a page accidently that is not needed that is just a duplicate of all these pictures in this category. How do I remove that page? Also how do I delete a picture I uploaded in the past? --Douglas Coldwell (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Read http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:DELETE BJ^Talk 21:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Starfleet General Orders, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. They (identity unknown) have done so using the vague NOTABILITY criterial. This is a general reference encyclopedia. The subject is "in universe" -- i.e. it is only relevant to Star Trek. As on of the contributors to the article, I must (regretably) agree. Although some degree a notability clearly is shown by STAR TREK itself, this is not the place for such extensive detail. There is a STAR TREK wiki where it clearly does belong -- but not here. I do not oppose deletion. --Jason Palpatine (talk) 10:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I am the editor of this article and I´ll be in charge of updating this artcile every single day. This article informs, which is the main aim of any encyclopedia and I would be grateful if you gave me a chance to continue with this article. If the page is not up to date you may delete it if you wish. Could you give me some ideas on how to improve this article? Thank you very much. (Answer me in my talk page). Qampunen (talk) 19:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It appears that BJBot might be having a problem with 2nd and greater nominations in that it might not be reconstituting the AfD link properly, leaving out a needed space in the article title.

The only example I have can be seen in this DIFF which I fixed as shown in the following DIFF. Could you look look into this please? Thank you. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me, the bug should be fixed now. BJ^Talk 13:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is. I saw a notice put down not too long ago that had the correct spacing. Thanks --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Your bot appears to be malfunctioning: I just tagged 30 user pages with {{Prod}} (as in here) and notified their creators (as in here) -- which were all immediately followed by your bot duplicating the notice (as in here). This duplicate notification is unnecessary. --Calton | Talk 04:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The bot wasn't checking for <-- Template:Produserpagewarningwelcome -->. I'll go add that now, thanks. BJ^Talk 04:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

From a quick survey of a few of the listings BJBot has added to Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 January 2, it seems that most of these were properly listed in the first place (try visiting one of the image description pages and clicking on the "Images and media for deletion" link in the IFD box). An issue with the new year, perhaps? —Bkell (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Your bot recently alerted me to the AfD of the article List of Turkish heroines. As the editor who opened the deletion process (after my prod was removed), I should hope I already know about it, and I'm probably not inclined to rush to the article's defense :-). — Swpb^talk.edits 22:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This should be properly fixed now. BJ^Talk 16:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I like this bot. It makes the article creation process much more friendly, especially for new users. Mathiastck (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Your bot is renominating all images from Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 January 1 again on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 January 2, giving "Auto listing incomplete IfD" as a reason. However, each january 1 nomination seems to be in order. — Edokter • Talk • 20:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Your bot notified me that "Another editor has added the prod template" to an article that I started, but I actually added the template to the article myself. G4rfunkel (talk) 04:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Should be fixed, it should now not warn page creators that also leave the deletion template. BJ^Talk 05:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Your bot gave me this message. I did not create the page. I have made a few edits to it (including making letter sections) but that's it. Other editors have made way more edits than I on that page. Why did BJ inform me? -WarthogDemon 23:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Same here. --Closedmouth (talk) 03:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It is to inform peopel of marlisn drfat history, what is the deal. oh not as important as nfl draft, well im talking baseball not football here. so get that message out of there —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredler Brave (talk • contribs) 20:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

How to remove the prod template?

i don't understand in English correctly.KanuT (talk) 02:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I originally created that article to redirect to Yo Gabba Gabba, the show from which "Brobee" is from. I don't know why a bunch of users changed it to stupid stuff that is unconfirmed. It is much better suited as a redirect, but delete it if you wish. --Victor (talk) 05:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The user already had an AfD warning. Sandstein (talk) 18:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any duplicate, one is a prod and the other is a AfD warning. BJ^Talk 19:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't upload Image:Vera.jpg, I reverted to the original version. The bot should contact the initial uploader. Corvus cornix_talk 19:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. BJ^Talk 23:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi BJ, BJbot is tagging a few images which are orphaned due to a dispute (The affected images are on this page). The page is protected, so the images cannot be put back in at this time (if they will be at all). The tagging unfairly advances one party in the dispute. Relavent threads you might want to note can be seen here at ANI and here at AN. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 20:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

If this bot deletes my image because it's orphaned, I will hack it and rip out its digital limbs (j/k).

No, seriously, the reason the image is orphaned is because it has been nom'ed for deletion. Most likely, the image will stay so please don't have it deleted! ~ Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 01:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I logged in there for the first time in nine months, after not editing for nine months before that because I'm reading through some articles and remembered I had popups or whatever it's called set up. And found a torrent of bot messages on my talk page.

I'm an ex-editor. You might as well save the bot's run time and not bother "notifying" me. I won't see it. - SoM (talk) 02:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This image can be removed, I was asked to upload an other screenshot. See Talk:Rome: Total War#Image:Greekroman.JPG Mallerd (talk) 07:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:FunnyGirlPoster.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

That's fine - I replaced it with Image:FunnyGirlPoster2.jpg, which I used in Funny Girl (film). Image:FunnyGirlPoster.jpg should be removed from Wiki. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 11:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martianmister (talk • contribs) 12:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Your bot just removed an image (Image:Fanta-guadeloupe.jpg) from my user page (Not home). I took the photograph myself and it is part of the Fanta page. Whatr licensing designation do I not to put on it so that I can also use it in my user page? Any info you can provide would be much appreciated. Not home (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look here [5]

Why the hell am I getting this message? I have nothing to do with the article. I have never even seen it. Someone messed this bot up... -- Xompanthy (talk) 01:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Correction, it seems I did make a grand total of 4 edits to that article about 9 months ago. But again, I couldn't care less about the prod and I don't see why the bot thinks I should. My edits were neither big nor important, they were very minor and basic fly-by edits, and I do those all the time. -- Xompanthy (talk) 01:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Point taken, I'll stop counting edits past a set time ago. BJ^Talk 03:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Somebody help please, this bot is about to delete an article I've been working on without a reason! Wild firebird (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I gave the proper PROD warning standard template to the editor who created Global Standard Deity. This bot gave the same warning to the same editor a few minutes later even though the PROD tag was never removed and replaced (There have been two intermediate edits by this editor). Is there a bug with the bot? --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 15:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I recently recieved a AfD notice for the page Naruto Uzumaki here. I'm not aware that I have ever edited that page (or maybe I edited it only once). Could you please fix the problem? Thanks! Midorihana^{~いいですね？} 02:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You did edit it but it was a while ago, this will be fixed soon. BJ^Talk 03:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I was notified that I edited it, but that was a vandalism reversion, maybe the bot could ignore minor edits? Thanks! Midorihana^{~いいですね？} 04:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I originally intended to do that, I'll try to do that too. BJ^Talk 04:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, BJ. How come there's always new bots handing out orphaned fair-use notifications? BetacommandBot had been giving me them until recently, and before that it was OrphanBot. What was wrong with OrphanBot and BetacommandBot that they had to be replaced? Jecowa (talk) 05:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

BJBot was the first ORFUD bot, then I took an extended wikibreak and BCBot replaced it. I returned a few weeks ago and rewrote the old code in a way that was more target than BCBot allowing it to be run more often. I don't think OrphanBot ever tagged orphaned fair use images. BJ^Talk 06:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I looked through my talk page, and OrphanBot never gave me orphan fair-use warnings. OrphanBot told me when I used the wrong license tag or when I forgot to include source information. Does more target than BCBot mean that it can find orphaned fair-use images faster? Thank you for informing me of when my images are being deleted. Jecowa (talk) 00:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It uses the toolserver database to make a exact list of images to be tagged rather than cross referencing huge lists which what I think BCBot does Wikipedia. I can (and plan to) run the bot daily so a back log doesn't get built up and then have to tag 3000 images at the same time. BJ^Talk 00:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Im sure there is somethign wrong here this bot removed my Burba image even though the page it is on tells you to display it on you Userpage if you have the right amount of edits. Is it an error or am i doing something wrong —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miraculousrandomness (talk • contribs) 10:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I gave notice on User talk:Uvenkata that Barzilai paradox (creäted by Uvenkata) had been nominated for deletion. Almost four hours later your 'bot placed a redundant notification on his/her page. —SlamDiego_←T 10:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The bot wasn't running that is why the notice was late. The notice you gave was a prod warning and the bot left a AfD warning, this is not a bug. BJ^Talk 10:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It should not be deleted because the article was redirected because of the unreliable confirmation. Charmed36 (talk) 22:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Very strange. The image is used in an article at Pablo_Picasso#Later_works, but is not shown as being used at the bottom of the image page. What can be done abou this? Tyrenius (talk) 11:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I've got the same problem, this image is being used on Northern Rock, but is coming up as orphaned.... TubularWorld (talk) 21:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking in to a fix for this. BJ^Talk 02:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

My problem is slightly different: this image was linked to by an article, but not actually shown. I guess that's an issue beyond the scope of this bot though. CPColin (talk) 01:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use images need to be used in at least one article, you did the right thing by unlinking it. BJ^Talk 02:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The original request was posted by jonny-mt at User talk:BetacommandBot. Betacommand has whitelisted her and was wondering if you might do the same?

quoted text for easy refrence:

I just wanted to see if it's possible to whitelist User:Melesse so she doesn't receive warnings about invalid rationales/orphaned images. I ask because she does a lot of valuable gnome-ish work resizing images marked with {{Non-free reduce}}, and so the bot warns her as the most recent uploader when there is something wrong with the rationale, which she doesn't touch. I don't think she's particularly bothered by it--she just removes the notices from her talk page--but I imagine that seeing the orange bar every time you log on starts to wear on you after a while.

Thank you for your consideration. Dbiel ^(Talk) 04:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Somebody just did that. BJ^Talk 04:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out that the image was orphaned. It had been deleted by accident from the article Music of Israel. I have restored it to the article, and added the fair use template to the image. I also deleted the di-orphaned image template. I hope this was the right thing to do. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

While I appreciate the thought behind notifying me when articles are being deleted, I have little or nothing to do with the articles you've been notifying me about. Please stop sending me these messages unless they concern articles I created, please. Treybien 14:32 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Added to the optout list. BJ^Talk 10:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this notification, I only edited the article AFTER it was nominated. Perhaps the notification was given because I moved the article, meaning that I ended up the sole contributor to the article title that had been nominated. J Milburn (talk) 15:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is the case. If I get any mroe complaints I'm going to remove notifying the page creator when nobody else has many significant edits. BJ^Talk 10:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding that notification, I only created a redirect. I forwarded the notice to Jdcooper who did the first significant edit. -- User:Docu