User talk:OrphanBot

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

Dear sir i have scanned the document my self there is noproblem of copyrights if there is any maore queries kindly put forward i am new to wikipedia. what do i have to do

regards Pingali 07:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded several pics from the manga but the bot removed them cause I didnt provide the images info. I re uploaded them & provided info from who they were made by & which volume & chapter they were in. It approved one of the images I uploaded mage:Katouchanlol1.jpg but it just removes the other ones for no reason. Where did I go wrong with the info/what not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am sorry that Carnildo has such an inferiority complex and feels he is contributing to the project by operating this horrible bot that everybody hates. Yeah, Carnildo, you're getting your name out there and I hope that makes you feel good about yourself, but you're just destroying information by running this sorry thing. ^juppiter iorno #c 06:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This bot is a very useful tool in battling the inability of a large number of people with the inability to source or tag correctly. The JPS 12:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

I hate this motherfucjer, aswell.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree, I have specified the copyright of several pictures yet this moronic robot continues to delete them Guess who i am 09:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully it'll adapt to the drop-down license list Australian Matt 04:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Spencer Karter

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

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

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

Does this guy know it's a bot? MichaelBillington 01:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does it matter? Either way, I haven't laughed this hard all week. :D

I'm supposing it's checked sometimes by Carnildo, so Timothy Usher isn't rambling to himself. Xainz 04:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Micoolio101 (talk)

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

• blames users who have nothing to do with an image for uploading it, even though all they did was revert vandalism, or correct a spelling, or something on that scale.

• insists that images that clearly and obviously have a source stated don't have a source.

• removes images because of simple genuine download errors by users who were new to the system, instead of helping fix their errors. So large numbers of needed and legitimate images have been unnecessarily deleted where all that was needed was a minor change was need. I saw one image some time ago that was deleted because the user made a spelling mistake and it didn't recognise the source.

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

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

This thing needs to be done away with. Someone please, for the love of god, figure out a way to permanantly damage this thing beyond repair. 76.179.235.134 06:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete Image:Early fans.jpg. User:Nadia Kittel

Film posters are fair use,so please remove your comment from file.

Hi - I noted your copyright tag on my photo. I am new to wikipedia and cannot figure out how to bring my photo into compliance so I can get starting using it. Can you give me some help? Thanks! Bundas.

How does this bot know if someone has rationale? I put rationale right below the fairusein tag - .. it still busts me for it. It would be nice if the bot's note tells the uploader how and where to add the rationale (so that it recognizes it). Fresheneesz 09:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC) NO SWEAR![reply]

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

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

This bot is annoying and removes images based on cat tags that might be added out of bad faith. Totally useless - stop it from destroying WP. 203.57.241.67 01:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)Encise[reply]

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

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

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

==wat on earth r u talking about????== User:Adelyna

To quote User:OrphanBot:

2. OrphanBot removes images with certain tags from articles using them.

3. OrphanBot notifies the presumed uploader of the impending deletion.

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

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

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

Stop me!!!

Why are you deleting the Images I made? That's better than they don't have any photo!!!!

		The Purple Star
		Given in recognition for having one of the most vandalised user pages. Timrollpickering 03:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See here - Neither me nor any of my bots ever touched that page - yours did, though. --ST47Talk·Desk 10:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphanbot appears to have warned a user for creating an image description page for a non-existant image that they did not create.

==Bot malfunction==
STBotI appears to have created an image description page for a non-existant image at [[:Image:Jburg.gif]] --[[User:OrphanBot|OrphanBot]] 06:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

As seen here — xaosflux ^Talk 11:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should probably have OrphanBot actually check the creator of such pages; right now, since STBotI is responsible for approximately 99% of them, it just reports anything it comes across to ST47. --Carnildo 18:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OrphanBot tagged an already deleted image as not having a copyright tag (the image description page was restored with just a category) -- I assume this is the same issue. --- RockMFR 01:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's caused by an upload, a delete, and a partial restore only a few hours apart. I'm not sure how to fix it, since if you're only looking at the upload log and the text of the image description page, it looks exactly like a normal upload. --Carnildo 21:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The indicated image in Crisp Point Light is clearly within public domain as stated in the licensing. What is wrong with the bot? ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 12:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I mis-identified the image that was removed. Retract previous. Cheers, ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 13:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You removed the image on said article. The image was a screenshot, not taken from anywhere. --Micky 1234567890123 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.161.92 (talk) 15:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This image was not created by me, yet you have sent me a message telling me that the said image is not inuse. The said image was created by a User:Vanhalenrulesforever. OsirisV (talk) 12:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bot, correctly (according to the log), identified you as the last person to upload a version of the image. Vanhalenrulesforever was also notified as an uploader of this image. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages such as User talk:Pashtun786, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:User talk:Pashtun786|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. خنیاگر (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Dunno How!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Solo28 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore the Acid3 article. The screenshots are Public Domain... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rklz2 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted file:url.jpg to an older version. Now OrphanBot has me down as the person who uploaded this pic, and is nagging me to fill in ownership info. Isaac R (talk) 18:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. OrphanBot should have spotted the revert and notified the original uploader. I'll see what went wrong. --Carnildo (talk) 01:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source and creator of the images is an Official of the Government of China and the Government of China of the relevant period. The historical extremely old Government publication maps like inter alia the File:Hung Ta-Chen's Map.jpg was created by Hung Ta-Chen a senior Chinese Government official , to the British Indian Consul at Kashgar in 1893 or the File:Postal Map of China ,1917.jpg which was published by the Government of China in 1917 and the source and creator of the images are the Government of China of the relevant period i.e. 1893 and 1917 and the maps prove that Aksai Chin is not disputed but is an inalienable part of Kashmir. Do not be so naïve as to, pretend that the source or creator of the image is untraceable and make it an excuse to delete the same. As for File:Hindutash in Kashmir.jpg, which is an extract of the map referred to in Article 9 of the Simla Convention between Great Britain, China , and Tibet, dated the 5th July 1914, the source or creator is the Government of U.K. of that time. All the maps are reproduced in all note worthy books dealing with India’s border issue, including “Himalayan Frontiers” by Dorothy Woodman published inter alia by London Barrie and Rockliff The Cresset Press 1969.Hindutashravi (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The way OrphanBot adds the removed from messages on File page isn't the best layout, compared to this example (1) it should be adding them under their own header compared to just sticking them in the last header that appears on the page, The message does also appear to be one that suits much on the file's talk page as well. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page | Contribs)} 08:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Permission has been given by the person who took the photo. That being me, David Lippincott. user:Chassisplans 04:00 27 February 2009 (UTC)

not sure how to do it - it appears some pictures i uploaded are being removed. I am the photographer so please tell me what we need to do as it relates to copywrite. I am new at this ask jeenavecia.67.109.211.68 (talk) 20:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What images are you talking about? --Carnildo (talk) 00:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew06 87 This user is just ignoring our notice in Zamboanga City thread, That image that he/she need to use is based on the image that should be consistent on all Philippine articles. And other specify section int he article that he/she keeps changing on without any reliable source or references; please help us either to band this user Matthew06 87, its up to you what could be the best choice for him/her to follow the Rules here in Wikipedia. Thanks in advance

Stop removing the picture. Author has given permission, I asked for this not to be deleted while we sort out fixing up what needs to be put on commons. It does not help for a stupid bot just to go ahead and delete it again. Thanks SimonTrew (talk) 20:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove Jayan's photo. There are lot of great souls in Nair community...why Jayan? please remove. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.99.214 (talk) 03:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for warning me. Originally, i don't wanted to create the page, but i couldn't delete it. So, i have to thank you to do me that favor. It wasn't my intention create the page. Thank you so much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheOneBeatle (talk • contribs) 02:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphanbot kept removing the picture named "pink vest.jpg" from the article of "Toshiaki Kasuga". I created the picture by myself and provided the licensing information as "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license: This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. In short: you are free to distribute and modify the file as long as you attribute its author(s) or licensor(s)." But Orphanbot kept saying "no licensing info". Please stop removing the pic and explain to me what other info you need. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yukie wing (talk • contribs) 14:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of creatures in the Resident Evil series. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of creatures in the Resident Evil series (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Lireo. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lireo. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As this bot has not edited since last June, I suppose it is now defunct? Should this not be made apparant on its userpage? Orphan Wiki 00:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of Kanto Gym Leaders. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Kanto Gym Leaders. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Josh Ohl. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Ohl. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Rock and roll revival. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rock and roll revival. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Mark Dalton (pornographic actor). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Dalton (pornographic actor). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Koman90/templates/now-svg Koman90 (talk), Network+ 18:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Plagium, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Eeekster (talk) 22:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
	This star is shiny. OceanOnset (talk) 06:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:OrphanBot, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:OrphanBot and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:OrphanBot during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Elvey (talk) 00:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on your user page, User talk:DIAMOND CITY, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be blatant advertising which only promotes or publicises a company, product, group or service, and which is a violation of our policies regarding acceptable use of user pages; user pages are intended for active editors of Wikipedia to communicate with one another as part of the process of creating encyclopedic content, and should not be mistaken for free webhosting resources. Please read the guidelines on spam, the guidelines on user pages, and, especially, our FAQ for Organizations.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. FriyMan (talk) 13:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Valerian Shiukashvili has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced does not meet WP:NOTABLE in any way

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Smerus (talk) 10:37, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Valerian Shiukashvili is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valerian Shiukashvili until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Smerus (talk) 20:18, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Karl Kraus 1914.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]