User talk:Robth/Archive 3

Pile-On

I'm not spectactularly impressed with the laziness implied in a newbie, malformed nomination. It clearly points out that the editor has not bothered to read the appropriate guidelines that are linked too at the top of the page. If they had, that particular self-nom would never have taken place. Recommending self-withdrawal is not a nasty proposal to make; maybe one or two of my other comments are a bit harsh, but they stand. Once you put yourself forward for RfA you're in a gladiatorial arena, so to speak. RfA can, and should be, a fairly brutal process. We have to be able to determine the stregth of character of the editor in question, a vital quality for adminship. Several times I've been very impressed by the cool and calm of characters of editors who see their RfAs buried under a pile of opposes, many of which are unreasonable, and thought "Oh yes, I like this guy, I'll definitely support next time round,". My comments stand. Best, Moreschi 07:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC

On 17 September 2006, you deleted the article for Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC for the stated reason (Copyvio, listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems for over a week, from http://www.wcsr.com/default.asp?id=76). I am confused by this deletion because, to my knowledge, there was only one copyright problem raised and the problem had been resolved by a revision and by the agreement of the admin with whom I was working at the time - CobaltBlueTony. Based upon the information still available on my talk page, I rewrote the article on 7 September 2006 and on 8 September 2006, CobaltBlueTony stated: "The revision appears acceptable according to WP:COPY, so I replaced the Template:copyvio tag with your revision at the original page, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC." Thus, as of 8 September 2006, it was my understanding that the Copyvio issue was resolved and the article was no longer subject to deletion for copyright problems. I am not aware of any other problems with the article (the article was on my watchlist).

Perhaps the article was deleted by mistake and, if so, would you please re-instate it. If there were other copyright issues that were raised beyond the one I corrected in early September, 2006, I need to know what those were and understand why I was never made aware of them.

Thanks. Tlmclain 19:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the article. I flubbed that one up somehow. --Robth^Talk 23:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and no problem. Since I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, I was afraid that I was miising some key point. Thanks for all you do as an administator to keep Wikipedia "clean." Tlmclain 01:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history Newsletter - Issue VII - September 2006

The September 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by Grafikbot - 19:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

recreation of deleted image

Image:Salvi Roskam Maher.png, which you deleted once, has been re-created in a slightly different format. I feel that as an administrator, I could just re-delete this, but since I have some history here, I prefer to defer to you. The poster feels that it now satisfies fair use, but I don't see much of a difference. Thanks. --rogerd 20:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think rogerd means well but is wrong in suggesting deleting the image in question. I have laid out a clear explanation as to why the image qualifies for fair use. It is in alignment with Wikipedia policies (see WP:FU). Rogerd disputes its fair use status, but provides no basis for his argument. I would greatly appreciate your help in persuading rogerd to reconsider his position. Thank you. Propol 20:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, the fair use rationale is not valid. The fact that the advertisment has been used for critical commentary by others does not mean that we are using it for critical commentary. There are, however, interesting things to say about the ad in question, and the way that Roskam's opponents have been able to use his advertisments against him with reference to his calls for tort reform; if commentary of this sort is inserted, I think the image would be a valuable addition to the article, and would certainly qualify under fair use. --Robth^Talk 00:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I have attempted to incorporate the necessary changes to the article. Propol 06:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hellespont

Sorry for the long delay!

I will be able to provide a map of the Hellespont in the near future. Sorry for the delayed reply, I have managed in the intervening time to move house twice and find a new job, while, due to the world-beating customer-driven focus of my internet company, my net connection (which I am still being billed for) has remained resolutely stuck in the first house. Add this to the bill for being left hanging on the customer "service" line and it is rather easy to see why I'm getting "net-frustrated" at the moment, hence the lengthy absence from Wiki. At least I've just discovered that I'm not addicted really! I rather like this new category viewing feature though, when did that come in? The map of the Hellespont will be forthcoming - would you be able to specify whether the locations you specified are towns/villages, mountains or some other geographical feature, and additionally whether any of them deserves prominence (e.g. is one a city and others outlying villages?). I could also upload an alternative version that includes the ancient Greek toponyms if you could provide me with the Greek names as well?

Nice to hear from you again, as ever, TheGrappler 16:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio not fixed

Hello there, the article Bomb Suit still has a copyright violation on it despite the fact you cleared the list for articles with copyright problems for September 20. Cheers, --WikiSlasher 13:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The person who posted this article claimed permission to post it on the article's talk page, and we must resolve that claim before taking action. The article is still listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Poster claims permission. --Robth^Talk 20:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK --WikiSlasher 07:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OhioLINK (replied on his talk page)

Robth -- I see you've posted a follow-up on my Talk page concerning the OhioLINK article. I'm not sure what more I need to do to have the Copyright violation comment removed. From my profile page one can see that I am a staff member for this state agency and am acting in that capacity to post the "what is" article to wikipedia. I've made this comment on both the Talk:OhioLINK page and on Copyright Violation page, and sent email to permissions at wikimedia dot org from my work address. I'd like to get this cleared up, if possible. --DataGazetteer 01:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent the e-mail as indicated by the instructions. Should I expect to hear from you or from someone else? --DataGazetteer 01:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on Theramenes receiving featured status

		The Worker's Barnstar
		On the recent event of Theramenes receiving featured status, I would like to award you this barnstar to let you know your hard work is greatly appreciated. - Tutmosis 18:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you, and thanks for your helpful suggestions during the review process. --Robth^Talk 18:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way dont forget to add the featured star to the article. - Tutmosis 00:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

library access

I have access to a very large library, and I'm happy to help with any research requests people have. Ancient history is my specialty, but I can do most academic subjects. If you need to check a fact and don't have access to the necessary book yourself, drop me a line and I'll see what I can do.

Hi there! I contributed very heavily to Kohlberg's stages of moral development back when I was still in college and had access to the fantastic University of California's library system. Unfortunately (er, maybe fortunately) I graduated. Now that wikipedia is getting more focused on quality/sourcing, I wanted to take you up on your offer and ask if you could add some good in text references to the article. The local library just doesn't carry this kind of focused academia, and the books are really friggin expensive. Anything you could do would be super appreciated. Heck, tell you what. Cite up the article, and I'll match that job with 1,000 article spelling corrections with my bot User:JoeBot. I just dusted it off in the last couple of days, and it still works great. It'll be a trade! ;) JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 07:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds interesting, and thanks for bringing it here! I'll have to look and see when I have time to get going on it; if you could recommend a good survey text on the subject, I might have time to go through that and add some references next week. --Robth^Talk 18:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! There are two I'd suggest:

• Kohlberg, L. (1973). The Claim to Moral Adequacy of a Highest Stage of Moral Judgment. The Journal of Philosophy.

This is a good pith overview of the stages, and does an excellent job at explaining the higher stages, which tend to be the most abstract.

• Kohlberg, L. (1981). The philosophy of moral development: Moral stages and the idea of justice. San Fransisco: Harper & Row.

This is a wider text with other authorities contributing on the subject, which also contains "From Is to Ought: How to Commit the Naturalistic Fallacy and Get Away with I in the Study of Moral Development". This is his seminal work and is the most often cited; a key asset for the his article here on wikipedia.

Thanks for the referencing help - i do miss my big library so and it is most kind of you to extend your access for others. I appreciate it a whole, whole lot. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 19:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another barnstar

		The Epic Barnstar
		After four FAs with articles about ancient Greek history, I think you deserve that. I have just one question: What's the next FA now? Yannismarou 10:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. As for the next project, I've reading up on Cimon this past week, and I'm thinking of rewriting that sometime soon. We'll see... What's next on your agenda (after Demosthenes, of course)? --Robth^Talk 18:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Great choice! Another Athenian statesman I admire, maybe even a bit more than Pericles.

• My agenda? Well ... I'll surprise you a bit: Domenicos Theotocopoulos! I've already started rewriting his article! But it needs more work!--Yannismarou 14:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• By the way, I've asked for Demosthenes a peer-review from the WikiProject Military history, so any suggestions, remarks, corrections etc. are more that welcomed!--Yannismarou 14:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erk Russell images

Just questioning your removal of images that are fair use images freely available from the image's owners (Georgia Southern University). Feel free to visit them here: http://news.georgiasouthern.edu/Erk/Erk/index.htm

Also, if you want to confirm fair usage, feel free to contact the Southern Boosters office at GSU - owners of the images. Next time I would prefer you do that as opposed to removing the uploaded images.

Replied on his talk page. --Robth^Talk 18:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS

The access problems should be fixed now. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dawson

Its lifted from an obviously copyrighted source and it doesn't really add anything to the article, ie I can't see how its inclusion meets the fair use criteria.--Peta 22:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bot help?

Hey, I was wondering if it would be possible for orphanbot to lend a hand with something that's come up on WP:CP. Some guy uploaded a ton of images, all from the same site, all with a spurious fair use claim. Would it be possible for orphanbot to orphan all of them to ease the process of manual deletion when the time comes? The user in question is Johnsatchmo, and the images are everything here. Thanks, --Robth^Talk 19:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can do. --Carnildo 01:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright claims

Note that if a claim of permission was made by a user who just showed up for one day a few weeks ago and left, it may be best to just delete it rather than going through the trouble of asking permission when the vast majority of such cases do not even return to Wikipedia, let alone result in permission. —Centrx→talk • 23:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if the article would have to be totally rewritten for it to be an encyclopedia article, there is no much benefit in spending time dealing with unlikely claims about it. You may be interested in the third paragraph of [1]. —Centrx→talk • 23:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tips; that's useful advice. The good news is that I'm working the OTRS permissions queue now, and I hope to have the backlog cleared within a week, which will make the whole permission-confirmation process much less mysterious. --Robth^Talk 00:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ephialtes

Ephialtes is at Ephialtes of Athens; I have proposed changing it, at Talk:Ephialtes of Athens. Do you think he should have primary use of the name, or have I been reading too many political articles lately? Septentrionalis 05:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harmonium

Hi,
I've made an argument from fair use on the Harmonium talk page. I"ll re-introduce the poem "In the Carolinas" on the grounds that its copyright status has been clarified by that argument. Harmonium is still protected by copyright, but fair use allows quotation of individual poems.Rats 18:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. --Robth^Talk 00:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Gates' house

You deleted Bill Gates' house indicating that it had been listed as a copyvio, but I never saw any notice on the page. Nor can I locate the notice on Wikipedia:Copyright problems that you mentioned. I see the article had 178 edits and a number of sources. Do we know what the source of the copyrighted material was? -Will Beback 23:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I found the original copyvio tag and its links. Even so, I think we may be able to remove the copyvio material while retaining the rest of the article. -Will Beback 23:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would need some additional material; I saw that there was a little bit of non-copyrighted stuff, but not enough to make an article out of. If you disagree, I have no problem with you undeleting it or restoring the good parts. --Robth^Talk 00:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me that the only copied part is most of the numbered list. Are you aware of other copied material? -Will Beback 03:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, most is clean. It appears that the parts I cross-compared happened to be the copied parts. Apologies, and thanks for correcting me. --Robth^Talk 03:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'm not a fan of the article - it's kind of a mess. As it happens, the copyvio'ed material was the worst of it so we're already ahead. Cheers, -Will Beback 05:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio images

Hi, Robth. Why did you decided not to delete image Image:Heroes.png, listed as a possible copyright violation? As explained in the nomination, the image was dowloaded from a website that forbids the reuse of it's images and, after the "possible copyright violation" nomination, the source info was changed to a website that requires the user to fullfil a registration form and obtain a password, subject to NBC Universal's further approval (see Terms of use). Is this a valid source for images intended for wide distribution? Also, the use of the Non-free fair use in tag requires a rationale. --Abu Badali 14:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that a website forbids reuse does not preclude using an image under fair use. You are correct that I should have written up a specific rationale to go with the Non-free fair use in tag; I was tired last night and forgot to. Fair use images are, by definition, copyrighted and not licensed to us. This does not prevent us from using them in certain circumstances. Fair use is overused here, but I think this image actually falls within the legitimate bounds. I'll write up a rationale this afternoon (i.e. in a few hours). --Robth^Talk 14:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point in the site forbiding the image use was a clue that the image was not promotional. About the rationale, taking into account that these images are intended to be used by restricted licensed websites (those who filled in the form and where approved by NBC Universal), do you believe we could explain in a fair use rationle how the use of these images in Wikipedia would not compete with the image's original use? --Abu Badali 16:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I noticed you rettagged a lot of these images from {{promotional}} to {{tv-screenshot}} and {{Non-free fair use in}}. Are you sure these images are screenshots? --Abu Badali 16:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, this is trickier than I initially realized. I've moved the lot over to the fair use claims requiring a second opinion stack, and I'll notify a couple of people with experience in this area. --Robth^Talk 19:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marking image removal as minor

Why did you mark the removal of the image from Christine Smith (adult model) as minor? Also, in using the edit summary of removing an unfree image, you were setting up a straw man. No-one disputed that the image was unfree, the only dispute was whether it qualified as fair use or not. Thanks, Andjam 02:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's the procedure I've been using; I can stop doing it if it seems inappropriate. The image failed the fair use criteria, both in its tagging and in its irreconcilable clash with FUC #1, so it was going to be deleted one way or the other. --Robth^Talk 02:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commons image

I tried checking the OTRS ticket for Commons:Image:Marylinsimons.jpg, but there is no ticket with the number 2006090310006158 in the system. Could you please check the number to see if it's right? Also, there should be a reference to the OTRS-ticket on the image page, since it's too easy to retag with with missing source by mistake. You can use {{PermissionOTRS-ID|ticketid}} to link to the permission. Cnyborg 03:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, yes, I seem to have truncated a number off the end of that when I copy-pasted--but I don't have access to my own closed tickets, so I don't know which it was. If you do have access, you could try all 10 possibilities, or you could ask someone who knows better how that system works. Sorry about that, --Robth^Talk 04:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fifa image deletions

Hi, Robth. For some reason, it seems you missed this one: Image:Teymourian.jpg. Just like all the others from the same uploader, it's from the same source and tagged as promotional. Thanks! --Abu Badali 21:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks. --Robth^Talk 21:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peruvian airport image deletions

Hi. I think you missed one of these images: Image:Huanucoairport.PNG. --Descendall 06:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. Gone now. --Robth^Talk 10:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Before You Die.net images

Hello, I was making a template {{SeeBeforeYouDie}} for inclusion on the images from SeeBeforeYouDie.net as in Image:Watership Down88.jpg, and then I noticed that on the talk page Image talk:Watership Down88.jpg, you had inserted a note. A couple questions; first is it worthwhile for me to add the template on the image page (and other SeeBeforeYouDie pages), and second, didn't SeeBeforeYouDie.net licence the images under the Creative Commons license and not the GFDL? Regards, -- Jeff3000 17:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The template looks like a good idea to me; I would include in it a mention of the OTRS ticket in question. The site did release their images under CC-by-SA. --Robth^Talk 18:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Lindon

Ping!!! I followed your advice and "replied as requested on my talk page" to your decision to consider any copyright infringement on the Richard Lindon wikipedia information extracted from Richardlindon.com. I have also read your note to Rex suggesting that rex couldn't just take my word for who I say I am.

Well... you went on to say "I'll talk to the guy and see if we can work something out??"

I'll make your solution simple for you.

Write to [e-mail] copy and paste the following question: Hi Simon, if you can read this then e-mail me back confirming you are the author for both the wikipedia and richardlindon.com sites?

If you get a negative response or no response then I'm a fraud.

If, however, I write yes Robth I am. Then Please react accordingly.

Thanks Simon Hawkesley.--Maverickhawkesley 22:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ps I've added the GFDL comment on the bottom of the page as requested

Re:Chirala

Just wanted to let you know that, I had restored Talk:Chirala that you had delete. All India-related pages are tagged with {{WP India}} project banner as part of the Assessment department. Could you please explain why you wanted to delete the talk page? Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 05:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted it under CSD G8, as I had deleted the associated page as a copyvio. I assumed that WP:INDIA would not want tagged talk pages of nonexistent articles hanging around. My mistake would appear to have been overlooking the existence of clean revisions in the article history, the content of which I see you have now restored; I'm not sure how I missed those, since I try to check very carefully through histories, and those should have been pretty obvious. --Robth^Talk 06:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rob, Thanks for the response. No problem. It was recently recreated from the scratch. When I checked the history, I found some deleted versions that I could restore. I hope I did that okay. - Ganeshk (talk) 06:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS

(Copied from my talkpage, ~Kylu)

For future reference, make sure to lock or close tickets that you're dealing with, so as to avoid confusion on the part of others. --Robth^Talk 06:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would, but since I don't have an OTRS account, it's kinda difficult to do. ~Kylu (u|t) 06:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: library access

hi there! happen to find any of those sources for Kohlberg's stages of moral development? JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 18:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet, unfortunately; my courseload's come down on me like a ton of bricks this past week and next, so I've had to put just about everything else off to some degree. I haven't forgotten, though. --Robth^Talk 03:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

don't sink in school. i appreciate the elephant-like-memory, but take your time. cheers. :) JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 08:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CP

I see you've decidede to step back and let some of the rest of us have a chance at processing copyvios. ;) I hope your courseload has mercy on you. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) (random) 16:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and it's good to know that someone's looking after things over there; I'd hate to think that I was hogging all fun! I think my courses will settle down if I can just keep them appeased for the next few days; then I'll just have to readjust to writing for NPOV instead of for a thesis, and I'll be right back into the swing of things. :) --Robth^Talk 06:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Rob's back! *cheers* – Quadell ^(talk) (random) 19:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I've been busy since you've been away. Yeah, that's over 1700 pages (mostly images) in past 2 days. Glad to have backup. :) – Quadell ^(talk) (random) 20:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1700?! Good lord! I think you cleaned out more problem-image categories than I knew existed!

I am back (mostly--I still have to go through the ritual post-midterms caffeine detox), and although I'm a bit preoccupied with a project on Wikisource at the moment, I'll hopefully be taking a little of the load off you. I also need to figure out what's up with this plagiarism bot business--is there something I could/should be doing with regard to this? --Robth^Talk 20:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only when you'll have time

I saw you are very busy right now. I was thinking to ask you to take a look at a certain dispute. It is about a a dispute about one word (!) (see Talk:Phanariotes#Comments II) and a subsequent edit war, but I don't want to press you. When your program is better, let me know. And I hope good results with everything you may be busy! Cheers!--Yannismarou 13:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a quick look over the page in question, and it does indeed appear to be a tricky case. I'll make sure to have a look this weekend, when I should have some time to spend on this (and to run to the library myself to see what I can find out about it). --Robth^Talk 17:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much!--Yannismarou 18:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, a case of writer's block has delayed the completion of my real life tasks, so I won't be able to turn my attention to this (and to the various other things I would like to be doing on here) for a little while longer yet. If anyone has any brilliant ideas on what to say in 10 pages comparing All Quiet on the Western Front to Goodbye to All That, let me know! :) --Robth^Talk 18:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I knew!--Yannismarou 20:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copy vio deletion?

I noticed you have deleted Brighton sewers for copyright violation. Your comment was "(Copyvio, listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems for over a week)". I couldnt find the copy violation listing so could you point me in the right direction? Hopefully, it should be clear there but is there any other way of determining what was infringed?

Basically, I would like to re-establish the article but don't want to infringe the same information?

Thanks

Smiker 19:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The previously existing article was copied from http://www.southernwater.co.uk/homeAndLeisure/daysOut/brightonSewerTours/dates.asp. So long as you write the article in your own original words, you have nothing to worry about. The website from which the previous article was copied should be useful to you as a source, and the article also listed The Illustrated London News, No.2254—Vol. LXXXI, Saturday, July 15, 1882, p.66 as a source; if you can find that article, it might be useful to you. Happy editing, --Robth^Talk 19:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the information. Smiker 19:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VIII - October 2006

The October 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Just trying to figure out what happened

I'm just curious to figure out what could have happened with the article Mohamud Siad Togane. It was involved in a AFD in early September http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mohamud_Siad_Togane and the result was Keep. But then at the end of September you speedy deleted the Talk Page for G8 because the article had been deleted. It has since been recreated, but I am just curious about the internal workings of WP that could have led to the article being disappeared after the positive AFD result. I don't know why you should know, but anyway!!!! --Slp1 00:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The old article was a copied from an external website, and I deleted it as a copyvio. I have restored the talk page now to keep the record of the AfD discussion associated with the article. --Robth^Talk 13:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. And for restoring the AfD note. Slp1 00:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use

Hi,

I trust that you know what you're doing, but in order to understand the situation regarding fair use better, I wonder if you could tell me why you removed Isaiahwashington.jpg from Isaiah Washington? I didn't add the image, and I'm not particularly bothered - it's just that the fair use rationale seems reasonable to me. TheMadBaron 00:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason was that the image failed Fair Use Criterion #1, irreplaceability. It is possible that somebody could take a picture of Isaiah Washington and release it under a free license. Wikipedia policy is to not use fair use images that could be replaced with a free image; the reason for this is that we hope to encourage people to create and release free images. For almost all living people, a free image could conceivably be obtained, and thus we do not accept fair use images of them. --Robth^Talk 04:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, if no-one actually has released such a picture under a free license (I have no idea), and no-one wants to go bother Mr. Washington, we can't have a picture at all? Is that policy? Doesn't that mean that almost all the celebrity pictures on Wikipedia will have to go? TheMadBaron 07:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, more or less. This policy has unfortunately been very poorly enforced, which has allowed a great number of good faith contributors to get the impression that such pictures are permitted. (For a recent discussion on this, see hre, where Jimbo chimes in in favor of this criterion.) Hopefully we will see a greater number of free images being located as the unfree ones are removed; if you would like to look for a free image for this article, I would suggest searching [www.flickr.com], where someone might have already released an image or might have one that they could be persuaded to release. --Robth^Talk 13:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time. TheMadBaron 13:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laas Gaal

Have you found any fair use pictures that can go on this article, I have found excellent images on Flicr but we aren't allowed to use it. However can you ask the author of that images if Wikipedia can use one of their images for educational and commerical purposes, I am sure they will agree

Abdullah Geelah 15:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

House copyvios

Hey Rob,

Thanks for picking up that there were still copyvios in Pilot (House), which I missed. I took a sampling of the other contribs of Dr. Zaius (talk · contribs) and found that the plot summary and layout of Autopsy (House episode) were from the same site, so I went ahead and speedied it under CSD G12. There are a bunch of other House episode articles with the same layout as their counterparts on tviv.org (Plot/Notes/Arc Advancement/Trivia), but with Wikipedian-added content since then that tviv doesn't have. Would you delete those as well, under the premise that nontrivial layout is copyrightable? (Sorry for the uncertainty; my main admin contributions so far to the backlogs have been CSD images.) — TKD::Talk 07:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a case by case thing, in my opinion; it all depends on when and where the copyvio was added, to what degree it is preserved in the rest of the article, etc. Sometimes you just have to remove one section; the trouble with the "Pilot" is that the copyvio is added right at the start and appears to be the foundation of most of the article. I'll take a look through Zaius' other contributions. --Robth^Talk 14:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for looking into it. — TKD::Talk 17:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rfu disputed

Hello, Robth. I need a favor. The following images were all tagged {{Replaceable fair use}} over a week ago, and there is a dispute on whether the images should be deleted or not.

• Image:Antonio Lamer.jpg
• Image:Bastarache-250.jpg
• Image:Bertha Wilson.jpg
• Image:BoraLaskin.png
• Image:Charles Gonthier.jpg
• Image:Claire L'Heureux-Dubé.png
• Image:Frank Iacobucci.jpg
• Image:Gerald Le Dain.jpg
• Image:GerardLaForest.jpg

These all show Canada Supreme Court members in their official robes, which (it is contended) they do not usually wear outside of court, and (it is contended) photography is not allowed in court. All discussion is at Image talk:Antonio Lamer.jpg. I've been involved in the debate, so I don't think it would be appropriate for me to close the case. Would you make an admin decision on these? Thanks, – Quadell ^(talk) (random) 18:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have (as you've probably already noticed), taken a look at the case and closed it. I also tagged a half-dozen other images of current members of that court. I should really start working regularly on that category--but alas, that's only one of the many things I should really find time to do around here... --Robth^Talk 18:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I feel like I pushed you on a landmine! But you seem able to handle controversy. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) (random) 21:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries--everyone involved means well, so there's no harm in talking things out. I remember how disappointed I was when I found out that some Greek vases that I either had already uploaded or had wanted to upload under {{pd-art}} weren't kosher, so I'm sympathetic the people who have had their images deleted, even though I think that they have to be deleted. Hopefully we can talk it out to where everyone feels ok with things. --Robth^Talk 22:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New RFC

You may be interested to know that an RFC has recently been initiated regarding Fair use images of Canadian politicians. Please feel free to TALK to the other editors. - Mcasey666 19:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification. I have already posted something to the talk page, and will certainly be following and participating in the discussion. --Robth^Talk 19:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

House pilot

I don't think our policy is clear about derivative works that are no longer copyright violations. I am of the opinion that if the most recent version is not a copyvio, that it is fine, even if it is based on previous versions that were copyvios. But I could be wrong about that. (I hope I'm not, but I haven't seen that question definitively addressed.)

So in my mind, the only relevant question is whether the most recent version of Pilot (House) is a copyvio. I addressed that at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Other. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) (random) 14:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion: Meaning based computing

Hi, I was looking up the definition of meaning based computing, as it is a term that Autonomy uses (linked from CEO and founder Dr Michael Lynch's entry - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Lynch_%28entrepreneur%29), as well as a number of analysts, such as IDC, and I saw that it had been deleted due to copyright reasons. Is it possible to find out what had originally been written or what the problem was, as it is a category of computing that is being picked up in the industry and should probably have a new entry on Wikipedia?

The old article was copied from this interview, which should be a good source for a new, original article. --Robth^Talk 15:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swarthout

I was looking through my deletion log for articles that have been re-created, and I noticed that you restored the article on Gladys Swarthout, which had previously been deleted for copyright reasons, on the grounds that permission had been received from the initial site. When was this done? Did you communicate with the site owner and explain to him about the GFDL? DS 15:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that I did this on October, 7; the reason is that, as you can see on Talk:Gladys Swarthout, we received an email to permissions (at) wikimedia (dot) org releasing the content under the GFDL. --Robth^Talk 15:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Stanley article deleted

Hi - there was an article on John Stanley (radio broadcaster) that you seem to have recently deleted citing copyright violation. Can you shed any light on what the perceived problem was ? It was undoubtedly a crap article, but I was intending doing some work on improving it and was surprised to see that it had been deleted. Far Canal 06:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The text of the article was copied from this website, which made it an infringement of copyright. This deletion does not have any bearing on the long-term desirability of having an article for this subject, and I encourage you to create an original article to replace the deleted one. --Robth^Talk 16:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're absolutely right. Thanks very much for your speedy reply. Far Canal 00:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Bianca Ryan image

Thanks for the note; it was my impression from Benny Tarantini that he was not releasing all rights, but did indeed give Wikipedia specific permission, which I believe trumps WP:FUC. If indeed I'm wrong, I absolutely endorse your further attempts to gain fully free use. Thanks again. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re Image:Joggle.jpeg, Owen's closing line in the e-mail containing the attachments was "I give my permission to use this photo anywhere." RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phanariotes

I had a look at the Talk page and I'm very pleased by your rational approach on the issue. If we need to find an answer, then we need to define some common criteria first, and we've been using different ones since the beginning. Unfortunately I'll be away for a week and I won't be able to participate. I can't ask from everyone to pause the procedure, but I can promise to join you in exactly one week's time. Miskin 18:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danny's contest

Congrats on your runner-up win in Danny's contest! You earned it. – Quadell ^(talk) (random) 02:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Congratulations from me as well! Kirill Lokshin 02:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Percy Keese Fitzhugh

Rob, Please forgive me if I am doing this wrong, I am a total klutz with this stuff and I am not sure how to ask you a question. You deleted my article on Percy Keese Fitzhugh because it infringes on my webpage www.bridgeboro.com. To get the article back on wikipedia do I have to take down my webpage? I thought it would be ok to have both. Please let me know what to do. Jeff —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.138.136.87 (talk • contribs)

Carlos Reutemann

Case raised entirely legitimately at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems and deleted on 6th November. I think this may have been a case of 'reverse copyvio'. The site given ([2]) looks suspiciously like it rips Wikipedia content. Compare Eva Peron (the first Argentine example I thought of) and www.allsouthamerica.com/Eva Peron.

If such is the case, is there any way of retrieving the old Reutemann content? Other than re-ripping it from the 'All South America' site, which I guess would be of dubious legality.

Forestalling a question I imagine you'll raise - Reutemann was not an article I regularly looked at, so I had no particular way of spotting when it went on copyvio notice. It is however linked from an article I regularly edit, so when it was deleted I did notice.

Grateful for advice, and I appreciate that this may not be the right place to raise it. Cheers. 4u1e 17:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, let me look again at this. I remember being a little skeptical of that site the first time around, and the new evidence you mention definitely makes this worth a second look--I will have to go look through the deleted revisions and see what I can find. It is possible, of course, that our Peron article is copied as well; examination will tell. --Robth^Talk 18:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible - from recollection their Ayrton Senna article is quite similar as well, but I haven't checked recently. Thanks for taking the time. :) Look at the structure at the bottom of the Peron article though - it's a standard Wikipedia layout (Notes, References, See Also, External Links). 4u1e 20:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They were indeed the ones copying, and they even had a little attribution note, (which, of course, they made so small that I missed it before). Thanks for being alert on this one. --Robth^Talk 20:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Thanks. 4u1e 17:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fos article

You deleted the Fos article supposedly for some copyright problems but failed to replace it or just fix the problematic parts. Are you writing a new one otherwise I may write one if you're just going to delete it without fixing or replacing it?

Thanks

I and other administrators delete many articles every day for failing to adhere to Wikipedia's content policies. It would be nice if we had time to rewrite all of them in more appropriate forms at the same time, but we do not. If you are interested in the subject, I would encourage you to write up an original content article to replace the deleted one. --Robth^Talk 18:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I suppose you are correct.

Dunlop Parish Church

Thank you for your judicious study of my Dunlop Parish Church article. You asked for an e-mail to be sent from the originating domain name. Unfortunately scotlandone.com does not have a separate POP e-mail facility. All four domains are a masked sub-domain of dotonegroup.com (hence my username) I can send an e-mail from dotonegroup POP mail but I am not sure this is what you will need to keep the article legal in respects to the GDFL requirements.

If you do a whois on dotonegroup you will see my name somewhere.

Thank you for your considerations and not taking the easy way out by simply deleting the article without further thought. Impartiality is a rare commodity and one that you appear to possess.

Martin J. Galloway

If you have an email address that is listed as a contact on your site, that will suffice; the point is just that we need to be able to tell that the email comes from the owner of the material, and not from someone posing as the owner. --Robth^Talk 15:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Hey, I think your pretty good with the concept of dealing with images so I'm coming to you for help. I was wondering if you could look into saving these few images; Image:EdgewwechampNYR.jpg, Image:Rvdworldchampions.jpg, and Image:ReyMysterioWM22WorldHeavyweightChampion.jpg. They all represent the same thing. They represent the very first time that the person in the picture won World Championships. They are important to the articles, and shouldn't be deleted. If these images display the first time, then how could another first time be replaceable? The first time only happens once, and cannot be replaced. Do you understand what I'm saying? A first is a first and it cannot be replaced. Please get back to me on my talk page. Thanks. --  Mikedk9109  (talk)  22:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet Chin Music

Please do not recreate images after they have been deleted for failing our first fair use criterion. Thanks, --RobthTalk 03:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I did not, I uploaded a new one. DXRAW 03:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you create one please then? DXRAW 03:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to replace it but unless they come to Australia then i dont have a chance. DXRAW 03:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm

So you're the sequel to User:Abu badali that no one asked for, right? Mad Jack 17:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really sure how to answer that one. If you have a concern that you'd like to raise with me, please do so; all my actions are open to review and discussion. --Robth^Talk 17:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Abu badali is the one who removes images from articles. You're the sequel to User:Abu badali. Like most sequels, you're trying to top the original (which is understandable), because you're not only removing the header fair use image from the article (which is what Abu restrained himself to), but all images, even the ones later down in the text which are supported by critical commentary and the like. Mad Jack 18:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. What I'm doing right now is processing the contents of the Replaceable fair use image category. I don't know how familiar you are with recent events in fair use policy; you can see my long explanation here; the short explanation is that fair use criterion #1, non-replaceability, which has been honored in the breach for a great deal of time, is beginning to be enforced. The reason for this is that we are trying to create free content here, and experience has demonstrated that permitting unfree media for subjects of which free images could be created removes the incentive to create a new free image (again, see the discussion I linked to above, and the links there, for a much fuller and better explanation of all this.) A new tag, {{Replaceable fair use}} was created a few weeks ago to help deal with the substantial volume of images being processed. What I'm doing right now is going through the images that have been tagged with this tag for over a week (in this case, since November 2) and processing the cases. Those that are replaceable, I delete; this also entails removing them from the articles. --Robth^Talk 18:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, how does one create a "free image"? For example, the two images from Gregory Smith have been removed. How would I go about creating a "free image"? Should I fly down to California or wherever, stalk him and take a picture (or two) for Wikipedia? I understand the free picture thing for the header of the article, however, obviously, for later down fair use images from films should definitely be there over simple images of the person, to illustrate various points in their career/notable roles, etc. (i.e. for example Johnny Depp, obviously a picture of him as Jack Sparrow or Edward Scissorhands would be preferrable down in the "Career" section over a "Free picture" of Depp at a film premiere) Mad Jack 18:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a free image can be difficult, it is true. The definition of "replaceable" that we're currently using is, I believe, "could be replaced using methods and tools available to members of the general public. These people do make public appearances, and it would be possible to photograph them there.

Past film roles is a different case. Obviously, no free images can be created here, so replaceability does not apply. What does apply is fair use criterion #8, which requires that the image add substantially to the article, rather than merely serving a decorative purpose. This would definitely be true for images of particularly iconic roles; Depp as Jack Sparrow strikes me as a great example of such a role; as you move down the spectrum towards relatively mundane roles, the issue first becomes more debatable and then comes down clearly on the side of the decorative. This is a judgement thing, though, and if you ever think I've deleted anything that was adding substantially to the article in an irreplaceable way, let me know. --Robth^Talk 18:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

No, I'm not going to just "let it go". I was blocked for removing warnings and tags 4 times. All of the sudden the rules change? Its harassment to revert other users talk pages? Since when? People revert my talk page all the time. This is the kind of stuff that I cannot stand. It causes me to go off. You say "It doesn't really matter whether he leaves the material on his talk page so long as he heeds the substance of the warning." WHY WAS I BLOCKED THEN? The rules only apply to me? And not DXRAW? Why don't you use your administrative powers to actually take action, and not just "keep an eye on the situation". Thanks. --  Mikedk9109  (talk)  20:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

Heres proof that I was also blocked for removing warnings from my talk page which was considered "blanking".

1) "Also, please do not blank current warnings from this page. --Yamla 01:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)"

2)"And you are not to remove current warnings from your talk page. These serve as a record of other users' interactions with you. --Yamla 01:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)"

So, tell me? Are you going to "let this slide" also? --  Mikedk9109  (talk)  20:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

Yeah, I guess this is an example of how messed up this place is sometimes. Some rules only apply to some users, and some people apply different rules then others. But yeah, this is a great place to be. Thanks for your help. --  Mikedk9109  (talk)  20:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cretan War

Hey, Robth. YAnnismarou suggested to me that you would be a good person to ask for a copy-edit because I'm planning to take this article to FAC. But if you are too busy could you please just give the article an independent review. Cheers! Kyriakos 20:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will copyedit this tonight ("night" for me beginning in about 4 or 5 hours). Glad to do whatever I can to help out on a good ancient history article like this. --Robth^Talk 20:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work on remaking the Battle of Chios section fron scratch and Il contact you when I finish. Kyriakos 05:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished can you please have a look at it. Kyriakos 09:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that section has improved tremendously. I'll go leave a bit more detailed note on the talk page of the article. Good work. --Robth^Talk 17:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I cleared up the section.Kyriakos 20:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That change is also good. What I'm getting at, though, is that you should go through the article and ask yourself the kind of questions I've been asking about each sentence and section. Tie it all together into a coherent story, just like you have for the sections you've worked on. This will take time, but it's the next step in crafting that article into a near-finished product. --Robth^Talk 20:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please have a look at the new improvements I've added. Kyriakos 08:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any specific queeries in the aftermath section?Polybius just say about the battle of lade that the Macedonians won the battle. But after look further on he quotes a passage from Zeno about the battle of lade but he says that he being Rhodian politician delibretly said that the Rhodians won. Should I do? Kyriakos 20:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, the best thing to do here would be to look for a modern secondary source that offers an interpretation of the events. If you can't find anything, let me know before the end of the week and I'll try to make time to get to the library and look. --Robth^Talk 22:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I checked check Livy and he says nothing and all Peter Green says is that Philip defeat the Rhodians fleet off Lade. Kyriakos 05:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it may be that there is simply nothing more to say--the historical record is lacking--in which case nothing more than you have already said there can be said. I will try to find a source that might say more, but for now, we'll say that what is there may be sufficient. --Robth^Talk 06:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. What do you think I should do with the Aftermath. Kyriakos 08:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear what happened with regard to the central and northern Aegean islands, and what the exact alignment of powers was after the war. I get something of a picture of Macedon standing isolated against a combination of Rome, Rhodes, and the Greek heartland states, with the Seleucids and the Ptolemy's somewhat out of the picture, but it's a vague image, and may be inaccurate. A more explicit description of the shape of the geopolitical state of the region after the war would be useful. --Robth^Talk 19:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen 1 too. I'll go find it. Kyriakos 20:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced the coin of Philip with the map. Kyriakos 20:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was actually a more literal sense of the words "picture" and "image" than I meant, although I think the map is a great addition to that section. What I was trying to say was that the aftermath section seems to focus primarily on events in Crete; a summary of the effects of the war in other areas would be very useful. --Robth^Talk 23:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some edits to the Aftermath section. Can you please have a look and tell me your opinion. Kyriakos 06:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That looks very good. The one last thing that confuses me is that, in the first paragraph, you say that the Cretans continued in a life of piracy, but in the last paragraph, you say that the Rhodians stamped out piracy in eastern Crete. Once that is clarified, all the issues I have spotted with this article will be addressed. Good work! --Robth^Talk 23:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think I should put this article up for FAC. Kyriakos 02:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. If there are any objections we will be able to address them. --Robth^Talk 04:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wandering since the Cretan War is up for FA what are the condiotions to pass. Kyriakos 02:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking warnings

You said: "Hey Yamla. I was just coming here to bring this up with you, and I see that you may be more up-to-date on this issue than I. I am of the impression that the whole warnings-for-removing-warnings thing has been deprecated as more trouble than it's worth, although I can't find the discussions that I took that impression from right immediately--it can be hard to keep track of the current state of these ever-shifting consenses at times. Anyway, I told Mike that, although he has been warned for this in the past, this case should be allowed to slide. I dropped a note about this on ANI, by the way, just in case someone who keeps a close eye on these issues cares to drop in and bestow their wisdom."

Thanks, Robth. As noted, I have some serious issues with this, and I'll note that a previous discussion on AN/P (I believe, though I'm not sure it was at that location) over the summer came to the conclusion that blanking warnings more than a week old may be reasonable but blanking current ones was not. Anyway, the correct way for me to influence policy is to write an essay and garner consensus and support, rather than fighting it out on the talk pages of third parties who may have violated a guideline that probably does not have consensus. --Yamla 20:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkor lenses

Regarding your comment on the undeletion of Nikkor lenses, I just wanted to clarify a couple of things. I endorsed the deletion because it took place according to the policy. However, I agree with you that it would be excessively difficult to produce a free version of that image. Not impossible, of course, but very difficult. Had the image deletion been disputed before the fact on these grounds, I would have supported keeping the image around. I do not believe with the appropriate rationale that it violates WP:FUC. However, no rationale was given, no reason not to delete the image within the seven days. This is why I endorsed deletion. What I'm saying is that I agree with you that a discussion about the recreatability of the image is well worth having. If everything worked as designed, this would have happened within the seven days between the image being marked and it being deleted. Or even earlier, when the image was first uploaded. If it is reuploaded (and I hope it is), hopefully the discussion will happen there. Of course, I was not the deleting admin, my only involvement is commenting on the deletion review. --Yamla 00:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what you're saying. The procedure was correct (and, given the information that Quadell had in front of him at the time of the decision, I would say his decision was correct). What I'm thinking of doing from here is just undeleting the image so that we can have that content and rationale conversation, which DRV appears not to be for; this would be functionally identical to someone reuploading the image, so I don't see any reason to draw a distinction. --Robth^Talk 01:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, FWIW. – Quadell ^(talk) (random) 17:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive images

Since your the last user that pops in my head with tagging images, if you don't mind can I ask you for advice? While recent change patroling I came across this article Eragon (film). It uses quite an excess of copyrighted images and I think it fails WP:FAIR because this pictures don't add much to the article except to serve "a purely decorative purpose", in my opinion atleast. Now my question is, what would be the best way to approach such a situation? Thanks in advance. - Tutmosis 21:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that article definitely overuses fair use images. The most pertinent piece of policy is fair use criterion #8, which requires that an image add appreciable value to the article it is used in. I would agree that, as currently used, only the poster used in the infobox actually adds significant value to the article.

The question then becomes how to address the situation. I would suggest removing all the images that do not meet the criteria and explaining this removal on the talk page. It is a fairly safe bet that whoever uploaded the images and put them in the article wasn't aware of the nuances of our policy, so taking some time to explaim those nuances and the logic behind the policy would be good. After that, those images which are no longer used in any articles would be orphaned, and should be tagged with {{subst:orfud}}. The most important thing though, is to be polite, and deal respectfully with any editors who disagree with the removal. --Robth^Talk 21:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed most of the images except the poster and in-film screenshot. I dropped a note on the talk page as well as on the uploaders talk page. I hope I acted in the right way and thank you for your advice on this situation. Btw, should I start tagging the images as orphanded now or wait to see a reply from the uploader? Since it's a likely chance he will just reinsert them. - Tutmosis 00:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would go ahead and tag the images now; that way if nothing more occurs the whole affair is over and done with; if not, then further discussion can be had. I'm not sure if there is a streamlined process for dealing with FUC #8 cases or not; it might just have to go to WP:IFD if things can't be settled amicably. But, that's only if things can't be settled amicably. --Robth^Talk 00:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thank you very much, your advice has been very helpful and is very appreciated. - Tutmosis 00:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up

Thanks [for the heads-up http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Geo_Swan&diff=prev&oldid=87445320 on Image:CCGS Henry Larsen 1.jpg. I left my reply on my talk page. Short version - I know cleaning up images that are on liscenses the wikipedia no longer supports is important work, and I don't resent those work who carefully on this task, no matter how much I like the existing images. I found alternative images to many of the CCG images that were made when CCG vessels were on joint missions with US mariners of US scientists, who worked for the US Federal Government.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 09:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanza MfD

Well, I'm backing you 100%. We are gonna get killed on this one, though. --Shrieking Harpy......^Talk^|^Count 17:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the nomination passes, I think that will be very constructive. If not, I hope it at leasts steers discussion and thought on this sort of issue in a positive direction. There is a discussion here about the structure and purpose of the Wikipedia community which would be very useful to have. --Robth^Talk 17:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on the nomination - even though I slightly disagree, someone did need to really shove-kick-start this debate. Moreschi 19:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing on TV (on the History Channel), Robth? I think you should take off the MfD on Esperanza, because I know two people have gone through very tough times in real lfe, and without Esperanza, they would have done something very wrong . . . . Bearly541 04:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is the deleation of Esperanza going to make wikipedia a better place? All it will do is dishearten editors and destroy community spirit. Culverin? ^Talk 01:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When your Dog gets run over, I'm not going to be crying. Dfrg.msc ^1 . 2 . 3 01:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tyson Beckford

Hi there, may I ask why you deleted the photo on the Tyson Beckford article? As far as we're aware, it was within fair use boundaries. Rusty2005 00:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image was tagged on November 2 with the {{rfu}} tag, indicating that it would be possible to replace it with a free image, and that it thus failed fair use criterion #1. Since the image is of a living person, who could be photographed at a public appearance, the image is replaceable, and after the week given for objections or discussion had passed, I deleted the image. --Robth^Talk 02:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: VW New Beetle Ragster Image

I read your reply on the image I uploaded a few months ago, and I came to the conclusion that it could be replaced, but as I don't know any sites offering any image of this concept car. Maybe someone in the future who may see it at an auto show can release their picture, as well, so I'd say ot should then be deleted. Thank you. The Helper S 07:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old picture upload

Actually previously I made a mistake. Some of the pictures which I uploaded was actually uploaded previously by othre Wiki users, I just edited it by downloading it and then uploaded it back. Now I am careful about this.

Regards

Kjrajesh --Rajesh Kakkanatt 06:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the pictures are actually taken by the uploaded person itself. I can check which pictures are thus uploaded, but it takes time. --Rajesh Kakkanatt 06:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

One more thing, The picture , etc were actually taken by me, not by others.

Sorry.. A mistake, it was not taken by me...

Copyright Status of Signs

Hi Robth,

Your comment that a "photo of a publicly displayed sign can be [public domain]" (from this image talk page) isn't entirely true. If a photographer takes a picture of a sign displaying copyrighted text, he/she cannot redistribute the photo ("verbatim reproduction without original creativity") without violating copyright laws. That goes for everything from historical roadmarkers, billboards, to campus markers. The best we could do on Wikipedia is to use a fair use rational, or better yet obtain permission from the author. In the meantime, we should acknowledge the Penn State Alumni Association's copyright by removing the public domain tag. Thanks, GChriss <always listening><c> 16:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right; I went and checked up on this, and I was thinking of the German legislation on this subject, which is more often talked about, and much broader; in the US, buildings but not signs or other artworks are roughly PD for photography purposes. So yes, a fair use rationale if applicable is the correct way to go. --Robth^Talk 17:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And looking at it, there was not a good fair use claim for this, so I have deleted. --Robth^Talk 17:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

I'd like to say that I'm back and ready to contribute again. Thanks for your patience. Miskin 19:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you back. When you have time to post your thoughts on Talk:Phanariotes, that would be a great way to start the discussion moving. --Robth^Talk 23:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 17 November, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Athenian sacred ships, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--P.K.Niyogi 13:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article about Wikipedia Users - Esperanza

Hello,

I am a freelance writer working on an article about the wide array of people who make Wikipedia their life, their passion, their pastime. Wikipedia “addicts” if you will. I'm also looking at all the "behind the scenes" goings on at Wikipedia that the average reader of the site never knows about. I intend on focusing a little on several of the unofficial Wikipedia organizations that members are a part of such as Esperenza et al. I noticed a proposal you initiated to remove Esperanza from the site under the theory that it is actually counter-effective to the purpose of Wikipedia. I would be very interested in speaking with you about this. If you are interested in participating, please email me at [e-mail] FFFearlesss 20:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Price Institute for Palaeontological Research

Hi Robth, Permission was granted via a phone conversation with Mike Raath of the Institute. I'm sure that if my word on this is not sufficient, I can obtain an email from Raath to confirm. It really is a pity that AED is pursuing these maliciously petty actions; there obviously is an enormous gulf between our goals and agendas. Have an excellent day. Paul venter 06:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Peshmerga.jpg listed for deletion

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as Image:Peshmerga.jpg has been listed for speedy deletion because you selected a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission. While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, a non-profit website, this is in fact not the case. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because content on Wikipedia needs to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial.

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it, but use the license {{GFDL-self}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If you have any questions please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you. --Robth^Talk 23:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it, why did you delete the picture you did not wait for me to replay, 3 Minutes after I uploaded the picture you deleted it. You at least could have waited for me to reply and then could have decided to delete image. There was no copyright on the image at all; I also took the time to write to the owner of the picture to ask permission to USE IT ON WIKIPEDIA. He said it was OK to use it on WIKIPEDIA. YOU NEED TO TAKE TIME TO READ THE INFO ON THE PICTURE AND NOT DELEAT THEM WITHIN 3 MINUTES. I WILL UPLOAD THIS IMAGE AGIAN; IT IS NOT INFRINGING ANY COPYRIGHTS, ITS TOTALLY FREE CONTENT. --D.Kurdistani 23:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Hardy Pics

I could understand deleting the pic of Matt and Jeff together with their titles, but why did you delete the Twist of Fate pic? Most wrestlers have a pic of their finishing move on their page. -- THL^CCD 07:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This may be the case, but such pictures are replaceable; someone could create a free image of the finishing move being performed. As such, it fails fair use criterion #1. --Robth^Talk 07:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks for explaining it. Cheers, -- THL^CCD 07:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

jamal.JPG

Hi there, I was wondering what is I3 - incompatible license means? While I do have the right over the image.

Thank you Mrayyan 07:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update:-- Never mind, I figured it out. Thanks

Mrayyan 07:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting For Freedom and Truth

Hello! You've deleted this article despite the discussions. Please have a look at the following discussion links:

• PD debate on my talk page
• Translations of public domain works are automaticly in the public domain.

Thanks in advance for the help. NCurse _work 08:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw the discussions. In none of them was the case actually made that translations of pd material are in the public domain. Fair use is equally irrelevant; we do not seek to press fair use arguments for such substantial chunks of text as that, especially not in an article with so little external context. Lastly, this material was not within the scope of Wikipedia, and the folks at Wikisource had made it quite clear they did not want it. I stand by this decision to delete. --Robth^Talk 14:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, thanks for the answer. NCurse _work 20:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject History of Greece Newsletter - Issue III - November 2006

Welcome to the project. Happy to see you there. Unfortunately, for the time being, we do not have the sparkle and vitality of othere bigger projects, but, at least some of us, try to keep things working! Every idea or conribution is welcome!

The November 2006 issue of the WikiProject History of Greece newsletter has been published.

You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link.

Thank you.--Yannismarou 12:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]