User talk:Robth/Archive 4

Archbishop Kevin McDonald

Sent the email - but still the same page. Please advise. Talk 14:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

"numerous copyright violations, and tone utterly unsuitable for an encyclopedia"

As a relative newcomer to Wikipedia, I must admit to being completely discouraged and frustrated. After spending numerous hours writing and editing the UMHB article, in one fell swoop you arbitrarily replace all of it with your very abbreviated version. You accuse me of "numerous copyright violations" without even listing them. I am unaware of any. You probably can't even imagine how long it took me as a new user to figure out how to use Infobox_University, and you deleted it as well with no explanation. Check out Austin College, St Edwards University, Baylor University, and many others that I checked for ideas. Why was ours reduced to a bare mention? It cannot be our "small" size when much smaller universities have "rated" much more space with very similar content. It smacks of some kind of prejudice that surely must not be the case.

I really do appreciate your efforts as a volunteer to do what must be thankless hours and hours of editing for the cause of building a strong and respectable Wikipedia. That is laudable and I support that. I do not appreciate such severe editing and authoritarian tone ("DO NOT RESTORE IT AGAIN") without truly constructive help. I reiterate "arbitrary" because rather than offer any help, you simply substitute your hugely abridged version. Surely there must be a better way to treat writers who are really trying than to be totally offensive. I respect your position and great power. Please use it with more sensitivity and a little empathy along the way. Meanwhile, let's just restore it to what it was before I appeared on the scene and tried to be helpful. I'm very sorry to have wasted so very much of my time, and apparently yours as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Afaprof01 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

Copyright dispute

I recently posted an image to accompany an article about an radio celebrity. You removed it. For my own guidance, and perhaps yours, I would be interested in knowing on what basis it was removed. The picture in question was taken by a staff member of the organisation that issued the picture. This means that under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (UK law) the ownership of the copyright of the picture rests with the photographer's employer. The said employer issued the photograph as a publicity picture for free use in articles about the person featured. As Wikipedia's copyright clearance form does not have a specific category for pictures issued by the copyright owner for free use, I chose the nearest category: issued by the copyright owner for use by Wikipedia, which in effect amounts to the same thing. There is no breach of copyright in the use of this picture. Consequently, I would be grateful to know your reasoning in removing it. This is not the first time someone has removed an image from one of my articles. What is particualrly galling is that I am a professional journalist who lectures in copyright and therefore feel I do know a little about what I am doing! What is your qualification in copyright matters? And indeed, what training in copyright law do Wikipedia adminstrators get? - Brenmar 10.08 GMT 20 November 2006

The concern is not a legal one, but one involving the aims of Wikipedia. We seek to produce fully redistributable content, which can be freely altered or republished in any context. While it would be legal for Wikipedia to use that image, it could create problems for people seeking to reuse Wikipedia's content for other purposes (which might not fall under the terms of use of that image). Thus, that image falls outside the bounds of our policy. --Robth^Talk 18:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia charge money for material it redistributes? Brenmar 3.00am GMT 30 November 2006

I'm quite annoyed that you've deleted an article I wrote without any signs of discussion concerning that article. You've quoted copyvio in the deletion record but that's done little remove the immediate assumption I now make that you enjoy abusing your administrative priviledges and that you don't mind irritating wikipedia users. Dbennetts 11:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

A kind Wikipedian has suggested you put 'Kenilworth Primary School' in my user space for me to work on while the copyright issue is resolved. I couldn't find the AfD for my article which perhaps again highlights the fact that you've not followed protocol on this one. Dbennetts 12:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Category dispute

I need advice with regard to an editor persisting in adding the category "South African Jew" to an article Selig Percy Amoils which I started. The subject is a living person and I feel that his "Jewishness" is a private matter and that without his express consent, it should not appear in this article. I am going by what I feel is intended in WP-Biographies of living persons, which cautions editors not to include insensitive material in articles. What do you suggest I do? Thanks Paul venter 13:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP is not a policy I am particularly familiar with; however, reading the section on non-public figures, I can see how the caution to limit the scope to matters related to the subject's notability could be relevant, depending on how one views the issue of a subject's religious beliefs. My suggestion would be to stop trying to make the change in the article for now and limit yourself to talk page discussion, hoping to convince the other editors that the material is not necessary. Looking at the talk page, it appears that the discussion has trended towards personal disputes. Avoid that at all costs; no matter what you think the other editors' motivations are, shifting the discussion away from the content achieves no good and greatly decreases the chance of reaching a peaceable settlement. --Robth^Talk 15:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

My opinion has also been sought. Jewishness is an ethnicity as well as a religion, and ethnicity is not covered by WP:BLP. Interestingly, one of the disputes is that Mr Venter quoted the subject's exact date of birth while other editors removed it. WP:BLP does have something to say about that: "Wikipedia includes exact birthdates for some famous people, but including this information for most living people should be handled with caution. While many well-known living persons' exact birthdays are widely known and available to the public, the same is not always true for marginally notable people or non-public figures. With identity theft on the rise, it has become increasingly common for people to consider their exact date of birth to be private information. When in doubt about the notability of the person in question, or if the subject of a biography complains about the publication of his or her date of birth, err on the side of caution and simply list the year of birth rather than the exact date."--Runcorn 22:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that caution with regard to a living person's birthday would be advisable normally. In this case the subject of the article provided the exact birthdate, knowing that it would be included in the biography, so that the usual caution would be unnecessary. With regard to the subject's Jewishness, whether ethnic or religious, my feeling is that in terms of WP:BLP editors are urged not to include potentially harmful material - calling for no less tact and sensitivity displayed in handling of the birthdate.Paul venter 06:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yikes! Fellas, I'm not going to be getting involved in this one to any greater degree than giving the paragraph's worth of advice you see above--I'm not familiar enough with either the BLP policy or this particular case. I'd encourage you to continue this discussion over on the article's talk page. --Robth^Talk 06:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Theogony-Wikisource

Hi, again! In the Greek mythology, I tried to cite Hesiod's Theogony from the Wikisource. You can see the citations in notes 21 and 22. Is there any better way to cite the Theogony from Wikisource? I saw how you cite Cimon in Ephialtes, but does this work here? I also saw that in Wikisource there is yet no homeric hymn. Thanks in advance!--Yannismarou 18:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The theogony is not set up for line linking; I think the only works that are so far are Plutarch's Lives of Cimon and Pericles and Xenophon's Hellenica. It definitely can be set up like that, with the only obstacle being that someone has to go through and insert all the line numbers into the text. As you can see from my wikisource user page, I have a semi-automated method for doing this, but it still takes a while to go through and find all the line breaks. So no, for the time being, there is no way to link directly to the lines yet. If you put the line numbers in the citations however, it will be possible to switch them automatically later.

I am not sure what you mean by Homeric Hymn. We have the Hymn to Hermes, but I'm honestly not familiar enough with Homer's works to be sure if you're asking about that or something else. Hope that helps, and let me know if you were asking about something else. --Robth^Talk 06:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thanks! I now saw the hymn to Hermes, but the page seems to have a problem, since there is no identified translator. I think that I'll use an external link for the time being. And I'll check your semi-automatic tool. Cheers!--Yannismarou 12:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Cretan War

How many pass or fails does an article need to pass or fail FA. Kyriakos 07:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It's based on whether all actionable objections have been met, not the number of supports and opposes. One oppose with good reasoning can sink a nom; a bunch with poor reasoning mean nothing. After the first few supports, the number of those doesn't matter too much. Raul654 is the FA director and is responsible for determining the outcome of the nomination. --Robth^Talk 07:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you now that the Cretan War passed FA yesterday. Kyriakos 02:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

King-Berlet image

No worries. :) Megapixie 07:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Bernard Price Institute for Palaeontological Research

The email you asked for giving permission to use BPI material for the article, has been pasted on my talk page. Thank you for helping! Paul venter 15:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Image:HansReiser.gif

I see you deleted this image. I presume this was over a question of fair use? I would have preferred that you tag it with a cpvio template and give me a notification on my talk page. Instead I have to notice the file is missing and track down the edit history. Since this was not a blatant copyright violation, more a question of interpretation, please assume good faith and follow proper process for questions of fair use. -- Dgies 22:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Procedure was followed. The image had been tagged with the {{Replaceable fair use}} template since November 6, and, as it is indeed possible for a free image of that subject to be created, I deleted it while processing the replaceable fair use category for that date. --Robth^Talk 23:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

And I quote: "After adding this tag, please notify the uploader with {{ subst:replaceable|Replaceable fair use}} --~~~~" --Dgies 23:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah. I did not tag that image, and I did not see that you had not been notified; that was a mistake on the part of the tagger, and I will remind them to be careful about that in the future. The image, however, falls squarely in the category of living people who could reasonably be photographed by a member of the general public; if you have any new information about it, it could be undeleted, but barring that it will stay deleted. --Robth^Talk 23:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Not to belabor the point, but while in the past it probably would have been fairly easy to get a Free image of Hans Reiser, his current legal situation makes him a lot harder to photograph. Dgies 23:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right, and having looked more closely at the situation I have undeleted the image. --Robth^Talk 23:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Notifying uploaders

I just got a note on my talk page from a guy about an image I deleted which he was surprised by, as he apparently didn't get a talk page notification. I've seen a bunch of your notifications on people's talk pages, so I know you usually do these, but do make sure to give one every time; it's important that people get a chance to comment before a deletion. --Robth^Talk 23:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

For reference, the image was Image:HansReiser.gif -- Dgies 04:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I will update my scripts!

• How interesting that you should say this, because you have probably deleted a score of images just in the past hour for which no one received any notification of such a plan, and for which no discussion posting was left previously in the articles in which these images appeared. That's an enormous amount of work that you are thus wiping out, without any opportunity for comment. I ask that you please modify this behavior, for the benefit of your fellow editors, no matter how strongly you may feel about speedily "purging" Wikipedia of such promotional images (to which none of the companies has objected) in this manner. Badagnani 19:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The act of notification is not the important thing; making sure that the uploader is aware of the issue and the process that is underway is. Ordinarily, notification for each image is the only way to be sure of this, but in this case the fact that you tagged each of these images with {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} made it clear that you were aware. Moreover, the fact that I left a note on each of the talk pages of these images pointing to the discussion at Image talk:Agave syrup.jpg should make it clear that I do indeed value and emphasize discussing before acting. I do not know why you chose not to participate in that discussion, but please do not pretend that the images were deleted "without any opportunity for comment". I recognize that you disagree with Wikipedia's stance on fair use images, but I would encourage you to express that disagreement in a more productive way; disingenuous accusations of this sort will do no one any good. --Robth^Talk 19:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Theramenes

Thank you very much for your noble effort in raising Theramenes out of the darkness of historical obscurity. The George Psalmanazar International Appreciation Society is now processing your application, and as soon as its, um, "international director" is issued a replacement credit card (presumably within the month), a donation will be made in your name to the Wikimedia Foundation. The Society extends our sincerest apologies for the delay.--Pharos 03:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for offering the bounty; it provided a nice target to work towards. And best wishes to the "society" in its future endeavours. :) --Robth^Talk 05:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Honorable Mention

Military history WikiProject Distinguished Service Award

For submitting an article that was identified as a contest winner (as an honorable mention) I herby award you the Military history WikiProject Distinguished Service Award. Congradulations, and better luck next time. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Images

Don't forget to remove the images from any pages, the rfu ones aren't being delinked by orphanbot. It's kind of a pain, but... :( - cohesion 19:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I am getting them, but the fact that I'm working on a dialup connection at the moment means that the delay between deletion and removal is longer than it would usually be right now. --Robth^Talk 19:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

And on the good news side, I saw that Carnildo edited the {{rfu}} tag to make it orphanbot readable today, so maybe we'll be getting a hand soon...

Evanescence image

I noticed you recently removed the link to a deleted image from the Evanescence article. I'm not sure who handled its deletion, but I strongly protest this and don't understand why it was deleted. Do you know why it was deleted? —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 20:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

See my explanation on Image talk:Evanescence 1.jpg. --Robth^Talk 20:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to explain this. I had been having a difficult time explaining my understanding the policy WP:FUC lately to editors that may have a hard time understanding it themselves. Thanks to you, I now have another reference to use when trying to explain why an image might fail first fair use criterion. Roguegeek (talk) 21:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Greetings Robth, I wanted to ask my own question regarding this issue. While I fully appreciate your position and stance, and intend to uphold it as best I can, I don't understand why promo images are allowed at all, if such an image isn't allowed here. Are they strictly for those images of products which have yet to hit market, for example, or are there other allowable uses? I was also under the impression that a single image was acceptable on an article. Thanks for your time, and for your assistance in this matter. Cheers, and happy Thanksgiving! -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 21:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I, too, would be interested in hearing your feedback on Hunster's questions. My understanding of one fair use image being acceptable on an article is that is still has to pass all criteria for a fair use image. Roguegeek (talk) 21:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Roguegeek is correct. Promotional photos are currently used much more widely on Wikipedia than policy allows; some examples of cases in which they would be allowed are:

• Products not yet released
• Deceased people
• Fictional characters (since the character itself is copyrighted, no free image can be created)

I hope that helps. --Robth^Talk 21:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It certainly does, thanks again! -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 21:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Roman-Spartan War

Hey Robth. I've been working on my new article and I figured out that I could use your advice again. Kyriakos 06:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I will have time to give it a look-through on Friday. --Robth^Talk 18:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I eventually want to work this article up to FA what can be done to improve the prose. Kyriakos 20:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The prose and flow is pretty good right now. The biggest thing moving forward is going to be to find modern sources. An article based off of Livy alone is subject to all kinds of errors, as Livy isn't a completely reliable source. Find a couple of modern books, see what they have to say about things, adjust the account where necessary, and insert modern analyses of cause and effect where appropriate. Linking to ancient sources is good and very useful, but it's vitally important to have the input of modern scholarship. --Robth^Talk 20:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to find some sources but I've had no luck. Peter Green only gives 2 short paragraphs about the war and his sources for them is Livy. What should I do? Kyriakos 04:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, it that's all there is then we'll just have to go with it. I'll try and take a look for some sources on my own later. I'm pretty far out of my element with anything after Chaeronea, but I might be able to turn something up. I can't remember if Gomme's history goes that late (or even Grote, if I get desperate). I'll try and look tonight or tomorrow morning. If you'd like to do a database or Library of congress, I'll probably be able to get access to any scholarly book or journal article you can turn up. --Robth^Talk 22:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, could you please havea look at the article when you have some spare time. Cheers. Kyriakos 22:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Angry mobs

Hey, I've got a big angry mob after me with torches and pitchforks. Mostly just Sebbing and Irpen, who have sworn blood revenge. I can't say I'm surprised, but... I hope I can count on your help on this. So far they've done this and this (as well as this and this, which you already saw). I'm basically being attacked by whatever means at hand for implementing a policy they don't like. —Chowbok ☠ 07:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Robth, I've never met you in the past but please do not allow yourself to be misled by the complaint of the disgruntled editor. I would welcome anyone's contributions at the RfC but please study the issue carefully before acting. Thanks, --Irpen 20:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue IX - November 2006

The November 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 23:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good

Okay, that sounds fine. I wouldn't have gone around canvassing in the first were it not Sebbeng finding every single person who'd had a dispute with me and letting them know. It was a bit unnerving. —Chowbok ☠ 05:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

My chief concern was in finding people with knowledge of the specifics to comment (and in fact at least one of the people I alerted endorsed Chowbok's viewpoint). Anyway, I've stopped per your request and will let it cook on its own. User:Sebbeng 17:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article Candidates

Thanks for your comments on my talk page. You said that, 'Although you are right that anybody has the right to nominate any article at any time, it is probably best..to check the history and see if someone is actively involved in editing it over the past few days; if no-one has been editing it recently, you should certainly go ahead and nominate it. If, on the other hand, someone is actively editing the article, you should probably ask them if they are planning to nominate the article soon.' I would recommend you put these suggestions in the nomination procedure in FAC-instructions so it's transparent and others are aware of these customs, but these suggestions would slow-down the development of the encyclopedia, see Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep and I know that's something you don't want. What can seem like etiquette or wikiquette to some, can be obstructive to Wikipedia as a whole. Even if you pour your heart and soul for years into an article, you don't have more rights over it than anyone else, that's the way Wikipedia works. Recognition is already available in the form of stars and so forth and shouldn't be tied into the nomination process as that prevents good articles getting read more widely. An FA like Salvador Dali is getting over 8000 views a day [1] whilst El Greco is currently getting anywhere between 10 and 1000 i.e. several thousand people could be missing out on this every day until it gets 'perfected'. See you in the history pages Tom 13:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

A couple of points. First, I think you are overestimating the boost in viewership that a featured article gets. Dali has appeared on the main page this month, which has greatly inflated the numbers for that article; an article only appears on the main page once, however, and over the long term, featured articles do not receive greatly increased readership at all. Wikipedia isn't really losing anything if an article waits before becoming featured--it will only receive that boost in traffic once, whenever it is featured. Since there isn't anything to lose by waiting, therefore, it's a nice and harmless gesture to allow someone actively editing the article to decide when to nominate it.

As for putting it in the FAC instruction template, the trick with those instructions is to strike a balance between putting in all the useful instructions we'd like to have and keeping the instructions short enough that people actually read them. In this case I think the situation you ran into is rare enough that adding to the template probably wouldn't be worth it. It's ok to learn through experience, and it isn't like you actually did anything wrong. --RobthTalk 04:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Tpbradbury"

Thanks for your comments. I didn't notice Dali had been on the main page this month, you're right it did boost numbers from about 3500 to 8500. You say that, "Over the long term, featured articles do not receive greatly increased readership at all." Have you got any evidence to back-up that statement? As an FA, Dali was at 3500 for two months before the main page link, El Greco is anywhere between 10 and 1000 i.e. FA status may give an article several thousand more viewers every day rather than a "boost in traffic once". The numbers indicate Wikipedia is losing something by waiting. Thanks for letting me know that it's "Ok to learn through experience", I'm pretty sure you don't mean it and you are helpful to a lot of editors, but if you reread that and some of the comments you wrote on my talk page you might understand that some, and the tone can come across as incredibly patronising. As I say, I don't think you realise this, please let me know if you want any help on copyediting and I'll try my best. Tom 13:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I need some help

Hello, I see you are a custodian, learned of your knowledgeability in the fair use RfC issue. I am in the middle of negotiating with a photographer for a free license on an image posted previously as a fair use item. He wants it to be in Wikipedia but there is a language barrier and he needs help understanding what his choices are. I am worried am going to explain it poorly to him. He is from Switzerland and asked me to keep it simple and short how I explain it, not send him a link to a legal manual. Can you help me? I am conversing with him via email. I do not want to post his email address publicly here unless I get his approval. If you want to talk to me in email about this, my email address works in my box here. It is about an image Chowbok tagged and an additional one as well so I don't want to delay explaining the licenses to this person. I don't want him to be confused. He is a professional. I want him to understand well enough that he even opts not to license it if it is not best for him. We could try to get something else if it is not the right thing for him. But I think he would like to do this if we can just help him understand. What protects his photo credit best? GFDL? CC BY SA? Also, the GFDL mentions in the text that someone copying 100 copies or more must be given the source code, which is meaning a software package. For a photo, I hope the "source code" would not be any greater image than what he gives us to put in Wikipedia. He may even decide to give us a bigger image than what we have up currently. I am in the middle of trying to answer this photographer and am worried I'm going to write something he won't understand or that's too long. – Bebop 20:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

If you allow an intervention, direct this Swiss photographer to either http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/deed.de or http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/deed.fr to release his image under the Creative Commons Attribution Share-alike license. And let us know about the outcome :) --Abu Badali 21:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I would personally recommend CC-by-SA 2.5 as the best license for images, but if you are already talking to him about GFDL I would keep doing that. The provision regarding producing more than 100 copies would not apply here; what that clause means is that if someone wants to convert the image into a form readable only by proprietary software and distribute more than 100 copies, they must also provide a copy of the image in its original format. This clause is intended to ensure that a company cannot take control of the image by distributing it in a form that only their software can read, undermining its free redistributability. But this is not something that the photographer needs to be concerned with.

The provisions of these licenses, explained simply, are:

1. The image may be used and distributed by anyone, for any purpose, but the photographer must always be given credit for it.
2. Anyone may alter the image, but they must:
   1. State that their altered version is derived from the original, and credit the photographer of the original, and
   2. Release their altered image under the same license as the original.

The benefit of these licenses is that they allow anybody to use the image, but ensure that the photographer is always given credit for his or her work. They also allow people to crop, sharpen, or otherwise alter the images, but ensure that the altered image remains freely licensed and that the original photographer is still given credit.

I might be able to locate somebody, if you would like, who is experienced with image copyright work and speaks this guy's language. I can think of at least one French speaker who is good with this sort of thing, and I can probably find a German speaker as well if needed. Let me know if you need any more help with this. --Robth^Talk 21:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I had just finished emailing Abu Badali about whether he speaks the language of the person just before coming back here to your message. I am going to try to use your explanation here in an email and also point him to the pages Abu sent, and yes, I'm certainly up for knowing anyone I can get to speak to the guy if he has questions. They could contact me through my email box here which goes to a Yahoo account and I can see if I need to refer the Swiss photographer to them if he has trouble understanding. Sounds like CC is the best way to go. When do you like to use GFDL? Mainly for our Wikipedia text? – Bebop 21:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, GFDL is the only license that works for Wikipedia text, but for images CC-by-SA is better (although both are good). Does the photographer speak French or German? --Robth^Talk 21:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's the most recent comment from him:

>>>>Hello Bebop

Maybe you know I am from Switzerland. My mother-language ist swissgerman. So my english is very

small, not like yours.

Can you give me a small and easy understandig step-by-step manual what I have exactly to do now. I

don't want (and have time) to read books about 'Creative Commons License or Gnu Free

Documentation License' ;-)

I really wont that the photos are on the wiki-page of Tav Falco.

So I would be very happy if you can make it easy for me (not to much reading in english :-) to

license the photos.

Thank you.<<<<

So it looks like he wants to do something but I don't want the guy to not understand what he's doing. He first told me he wanted to let them be in Wikipedia. He hasn't yet made it clear he understands the license I'm asking him for. Looks like he speaks German. I just feel it's important for a photographer to understand what we're asking, but not bore him to death with too much text from me either. I do not consider the above to be clearly understanding what I'm asking but I think he's going to probably understand from what I've just sent him in reply. I hope. – Bebop 21:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, I explained to him I was getting assistance from another editor (you) on this and that I showed the one email without his name or email address on the editor's user talk page (I don't quote email without permission). I displayed it try to show people what sorts of reactions photographers have when they are given these requests for licenses they don't have time to deal with digesting the details on. It's something that needs to be understood by the people running policy at wikipedia. And I am certainly not considering the above a permission yet. It's not. When I get a true permission for a license, I will tag the free license. If I don't get a clear license permission, I'll have it deleted; it's one Chowbok tagged for deletion. And another image too. – Bebop 22:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

To clarify (after rereading his message), it's not an image from the Tav Falco page that he means. He did not take the photo of Tav Falco on the Tav Falco page. He means the photo on the Tav Falco's Panther Burns page that chowbok tagged for deletion, which is a photo of Tav Falco performing live; I'm dealing with two photos by this photographer and other items I'm researching. The photo on the Tav Falco page was not shot by this photographer; it was taken by Tav Falco, a self portrait and is already tagged GFDL. – Bebop 23:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay. How far have you gotten with the photographer--have you sent him a simplified explanation of the licenses and their benefits? If you have, or if you have not yet but would like to send it yourself, the next thing to do is to see what his response is. If he decides to release the image under a free license, you should then forward the email conversation to permission-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org, so that the record can be archived, and so that the image can be tagged as confirmed. If at any point you are having difficulty explaining things to the photographer and would like someone experienced with this kind of work or a German speaker to take over from you, forward the emails to permissions (at) wikimedia (dot) org. Also, if you would like me to help you with this through a means of communication more efficient than talk pages, feel free to email me about it at Robth1 (at) gmail (dot) com. --Robth^Talk 03:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I just finally got the license request approved and some lunatic (I do not mean you since I do not believe you did it) has already deleted the photo when I went to go to update it with the new license information. I had not been given 7 days from the time I notified Chowbok I'd seen his message, and you had said on the discussion page of the RfC that people here will work with you when you tell them you are negotiating. I feel very hurt by the way this has been handled. Very angry. I feel people don't mean what they say when they tell me they are willing to work with me and they are unreasonable. I announced in good faith to both Chowbok and you what I was working on and even showed part of the correspondence. You write me a reply above as though I wasn't going to come back and update you the instant I had more information. Do you think that photographers on another continent reply instantly to every email I send? They do not. I am outraged at the way I have been treated at this place. It is just unbelievable how people behave here. When I finish the next article I am in the middle of researching (haven't added it but have the research already under way at home), I will not contribute any more work to wikipedia other than to maintain previous articles. People's time and effort are not respected here. I find it unforgiveable and disgusting the way this has been handled since I was clearly telling you guys every step of the way what was happening and had put a notice tag in the photo while working on it. I also would like to know who deleted it. If people can't be up front about that, they are just cowards. – Bebop 16:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry this happened, and I hope you won't leave Wikipedia over it. It appears that there was an incident several hours ago where an administrator misunderstood the nature of the rfu tag and used a script to delete hundreds of images. I have have undeleted this image (I assume we are talking about Image:TavFalcoSwiss2004Maerz.jpg); if you know of any others that were inappropriately deleted recently, let me know about them too. If you will forward the release email to permission-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org for archiving, I will process it today and tag the image as confirmed. --Robth^Talk 16:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I had an "edit conflict" with the timing just now and was trying to remove my above note and correct it to say that the photo seems to be back in the article and that I'm about to update it, but you beat me to being able to remove the text that said it had been removed. I'll have to verify this of course. Maybe my computer was just not showing the image for some reason but I was seeing different tags and so forth so I don't think it was my computer. Let me just work on trying to update the photo and I'll get back with you. I'd have liked to remove the above spiel when I went back and thought I saw the photo back in the article but I didn't get a chance. Let me make sure what is going on. It may not be deleted. – Bebop 16:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC) (Changed strikeout location because I found out later that I had misread Robth's response above this and that he was acknowledging the image had been deleted as I had thought and that he had put it back, so I hadn't been confused that it had been deleted by someone. – Bebop 12:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC))

Ok, Robth, I have completed updating two photographs with license permissions I obtained by email from the photographer. I will not just stop here but will check on licenses on anything else I've put up with fair use permission previously. Thanks for replacing the photo. I have updated it with the license info and permission. Complicating this is the fact the band had previously gotten the photographer's name wrong but they put me in touch with him this week. He verified he took the two photos (one of which had been tagged for deletion) and wrote me a clear statement that he wanted CC by SA 2.5 license put on them today. He told me the village name that the band leader had given for the concert was slightly off and the band leader verified the photographer was correct. It was a neighboring village, and the band leader is not a native of the country where the show was. I corrected the details and was pretty annoyed the band leader had been mistaken in what he told me in the first place about the name and town he had wrong. And I got the license in there. I'll also see if the photographer would like to send larger sizes (since he mentioned it) and if he would then I will have these two deleted and replaced. The file name of the larger file would include his last name instead of the mistake name if we are sent any larger ones but if not, we already have the proper license on the ones we have so far. I don't suppose there are set rules on how small a file can be. I know the limit is 20 mb. Let me know any tips you have. I'm researching other photos too. I suppose we could have more Creative Commons licensed photos uploaded by me into our repository than we use in the article if I obtain any more, correct? And if I upload any that are not used in the article, is the only appropriate place for that the Wikimedia Commons or Wikipedia's upload area? Can people run a search for a photo subject in the Wikipedia photo database or the Wikimedia Commons database? Anyway, I did get the work done. He said two or three times he didn't want to be bothered reading "books" about Creative Commons Licenses. I think this may be the case with a lot of photographers. But he did write a deliberate sentence granting this license for the two photos and I got a clear permission. Thank you very much for all tips and advice you gave. I assume that the info from you I gave him may have helped make up his mind. Sorry I had been very angry when I saw a blank space for the photo earlier today for whatever reason it occurred when I had gone there to update the license. – Bebop 17:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, let me know if files shouldn't really be uploaded so large as 18 mb or something close to 20 mb and what the ideal size is for photos uploaded. I understand 20 mb is the final limit. Is 500 kb to about 8 mb about what I should say to photographers is a good size if the photographer is up for larger sized files? Sometimes only 150 mb size files or smaller is all that I have but there are times I have a choice. I need to be clear in what I ask these people for regarding desired sizes. Sorry for the questions. I am in the middle of checking on a larger size though. – Bebop 18:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for going to the trouble to do this, and for your commitment to getting the licensing right and making sure the photographer understands clearly what he is agreeing to. Do make sure to foward the confirmation email to permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org so that it can be archived and the image tagged as confirmed. To respond to your questions:

• There is no limit on the number of free licensed photos of a subject we can have, and Wikimedia commons is the place for them, since once they are uploaded there they can also be used on other language projects. Searching on Commons is possible though not perfect (Mediawiki is not ideal software for a media repository) but they have a much better image categorization system than we do here, so it is possible to browse for images related to a certain subject.
• As far as image filesize, for a free image I believe that bigger is better, up to the Mediawiki technical maximum; it allows for higher resolution and for a better image for reusers. If the photographer would like to release a high-resolution version that would be excellent. --Robth^Talk 19:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to continue to bombard your inbox with questions but I need a little bit of information on how forwarding of a permission is handled. For instance, is this going to subject his email address to public display? What if he doesn't want it displayed, so as to prevent spam? I could ask him if he has an email address that can be displayed publicly but many people including myself do not. I could arrange for myself to have an email address I would mind less having displayed publicly and have him re-send the permission there, then forward that to the account. What does the permissions account do with the email, post it in public? I posted his website address in the photo info page to protect his email address, figuring that people can find an email address there and I quoted the part of the email where he discussed and gave permission directly into the photo information page. This person does not like being bothered with a lot of emails, and so I am wanting to conserve all my questions to one email if I approach him again with more requests. I think I would prefer to get a new email address for this purpose if my email address is going to start becoming public due to these permissions emails and whatever you folks are doing with them, posting them publicly or whatever happens. Thanks for the info on size. Also, if you have any links to past permissions requests, I'd love to see them before I finish this process. I definitely have permission but I might like to have him do it over in an email that only discusses that one topic and to an email address of mine that I'm comfortable with having displayed since it sounds like we have to display these. He has released the photos CC by SA 2.5 though, no question. I'll handle them all the same in the future but I am still learning certain aspects of this and did not know about emailing to that permissions address. – Bebop 21:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The address will not be put on public display. The email correspondence will be stored in the secure Wikimedia OTRS system; the photographer will not receive any emails as a result of this. What is placed on the image page is the template {{PermissionOTRS}}, which provides a link to the conversation for people with access to the system; this allows for confirmation of the release while maintaining privacy for the photographer and release-negotiator. Neither your or his email address will be publicly visible, and OTRS regulations strictly forbid the public release of any confidential information of this sort. --Robth^Talk 21:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

If he opts to just leave these photos the size we already have rather than send a larger one, is there any way to change the file names of the two files without deleting them first? I unfortunately chose to use the word Maerz in the file names previously because the band leader thought that was the name of the photographer. He had confused the photographer with a graphic artist, it turns out, which is why he had given me the wrong name (Maerz) previously. I don't want to keep Maerz's name in the file name at all. I also am eventually going to have to try to inform users across the internet who downloaded it of the error in the name previously because I found the name and photo on other sites copied from our article. I think the band leader will know after this to be more careful about not letting there be any mistake in photo info he gives me but I'm trying to go direct to photographers in the future. The previous way I got them was through the band as promo photos. But this is much better going to the photographer. Anyway, if he sends me resized copies that are larger, I could have the old two deleted that are up already with the confusing file names, but if he doesn't have time to deal with that, I still want to change the file names to reflect his last name, Kuenzler, and not Maerz's name. So if you have any direction on how best to do this, I appreciate it. I'll work on forwarding the permission but I prefer to use a different email address for something I am forwarding to a database so I'll have him re-send me the permission to my other email address that I'm creating for Wikipedia work. Then I'll forward it to the permissions email address. – Bebop 22:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good about the emails. As for changing the name of a photo, the only way to do this is to reupload the file under a different name (Mediawiki does not allow images to be moved or renamed internally). Changing the size of an image, however, is easier; on every image page, in the "File history" section, there is an "upload a new version of this file" link. So what I would do for now is reupload the versions you currently have under the name you want them to be under, copy all the correct information to the licensing and source sections of those files, tag the old versions for deletion with {{db-self}}, and then, if the photographer releases higher resolution versions of the images, upload those as new versions of the correctly named images. --Robth^Talk 22:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if it's ok to just do this in wikipedia as before or if I need to learn how to do uploads to wikimedia commons. Or if I can always later upload something to wikimedia commons that I uploaded to wikipedia. Or do I have to get different permissions for that? I don't want to keep bugging him for more permissions. I thought a license for CC by SA 2.5 is for anyone, unless actually what I'm asking for is a license for Wikipedia. I thought basically we're asking for a CC licensed photo which we could put in Wikipedia or which anyone else could. Or maybe I should ask him "for Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons" to be given the license. Confusing. – Bebop 22:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

(De-indent) If it is CC-by-SA licensed it is usable for either project. Licensing of that sort applies not just to one project but to all reusers. --Robth^Talk 23:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I marked the two photos with file names that are confusing for speedy delete with that tag and reuploaded the files with the licensing and new name. I am going to get the permissions over to the permissions email address but asked the photographer to send it to me again to my new email account that I'd rather use for correspondence with wikipedia. If he also gives us a bigger file for them later, that's nice. The worst thing is that because of the band leader's mixup about the names in the past I will eventually spend a good bit of time hunting down everyone I can find on the internet who has reposted the old files with the wrong photographer name thanks to the erroneous name info previously but it's not going to be that big a deal, I don't think. I just have to have time to do that and I have many things to do but eventually I will get it done. Perhaps the renaming of the file and the deletion of the old file will automatically lead to some people who mirror our site being alerted there is a change in the photo detail and license. So the speedy deletion will help. If there's anything I need to do to get the speedy delete of the duplicates done besides the tagging, let me know but I'll assume not unless I hear otherwise. Thanks very much for everything. I'm of course not finished with all I need to do to maintain my previous work here. People have really done a good job with an AntiVandalBot thing I saw once fixing things people tried to do to one of the articles I've contributed in the past, but I need to get back to maintining articles and will add a new one in coming weeks when I have a chance to sit down and get it finished. – Bebop 00:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that everything worked out. Let me know anytime you'd like help with something like this in the future, and thank you for putting in the time and effort on this. --Robth^Talk 07:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I see that you wrote above the other day (back where I was upset about a deletion) that the image did get deleted before after all, and I had misread that, so I didn't need to strike out my previous comment and I wasn't mistaken. I think I never did read your first reply on that incdent fully in my embarrassment after seeing the image was back (the other day), so I guess I'll remove the strikeout since I wasn't dreaming it was deleted and I'll strike out or delete instead comments related to not realizing you'd acknowledged it had been deleted by mistake and that you are the reason it was undeleted. Anyway, back to what I came here today to say, I am about ready to do two things now, send the permission email to the permissions people and update the two by the Swiss photographer with larger versions of the same image he has now sent. I'm unsure how to upload the new larger versions, but after I work on this update, I'll ask questions if I have a problem, plan to copy you in the email too since I now see you can help with permission tagging. Also, I wish I knew next time how to let an admin who deletes things know I'm working with an admin on getting licensing so they don't go delete something in less than the time I need to work on it. – Bebop 12:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I have so many more questions that have now come up, I am moving it to email. I did not see your previous sentence in the past offering me the option to use email, so thanks. – Bebop 13:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all the email help. I am about finished with the two Swiss photos other than the final deletion tagging of duplicates and will keep working on other photos related to me. I adjusted strikeouts above after realizing a day or so late that I hadn't imagined the photos had been deleted by some admin, but I don't feel angry about anything and don't plan to not contribute over this. And thanks for undeleting things and helping me finish up this confusing process via email. – Bebop 05:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Katherine Moennig.jpg

I remembered the help you provided in explaining fair use criteria on Image talk:Evanescence 1.jpg before. I've referred back to it several times already. If there is any way you could again help provide further explanation on Image talk:Katherine Moennig.jpg to help our understanding of the issue. Thanks again! Roguegeek (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to put your input on this. I appreciate it a lot. Roguegeek (talk) 04:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, and a couple questions

I appreciate your support in the RFC (and the constructive criticism as well). It's been very encouraging.

Now I have a couple questions relating to Irpen. He is still simply removing RFU tags from images (here's the latest one). If I keep putting them back, he reports me for 3RR. How should I handle this?

Also, you probably saw it already, but note this comment of Irpen's. I take this to mean "if Chowbok doesn't capitulate, we'll take him to ArbCom". Bearing this in mind, what advice do you have for me? I may resume tagging images soon. —Chowbok ☠ 03:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Chowbok, if you have questions, ask them politely and you will get a response. The tag was removed since you did not provide an explanation on how the FU rationale given at the image page seems to you unsatisfactory. I did not remove all the thousands tags you added. I specifically removed them in some cases where the good faith FU rationale was present and you did not bother to explain what was wrong with such rationale or the tag seemed to me totally out of place. As such, it is unclear what exactly you are disputing and whether the dispute is in good faith. Note that the WP:AGF states among other things: "This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." Your multithousand assault on Wikipedia articles with a complete disregard to the specifics of each individual case as well as rude and combative demeanor does suggest the evidence to the contrary and you should expect a fierce resistance if your assault is resumed.

Second, the tag you are placing is not an AfD tag whose deletion (when it is placed in Good faith) is indeed vandalism. The tag is more akin to {{Disputed}} or {{POV}} whose deletion and addition is subject to 3RR. Otherwise, nothing could have prevented the Flat Earth theorist from perpetually tagging the Earth article, the hard core Creationist from tagging the Evolution article and the Nazi sympathizer from tagging the Holocaust articles forever restoring the tags an infinite number of times claiming the tag removal is vandalism and 3RR does not apply. In your tag you do exactly the same thing as the user who tags the article disputing it is doing. Such user claims that the article does not satisfy the Wikipedia WP:NPOV or some other policy. If your tag contradicts the consensus of other users, your persisting with it falls under 3RR clause. And the 3RR rule functions not only to stop endless revert wars but, occasionally, as a rough measure of where the consensus stands. You were spared the first time but I would not rely on this to happen again if I were you.

Finally, I urge Robth to click on the link where you claim I "threaten" you. In fact, I say nothing of this sort. You seem to think that users here are obsessed with your personality and spend time plotting against yourself. That's a big overestimation of one's personal importance. We, users, care about Wikipedia and its development towards the best source of information anyone can use. --Irpen 03:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Heh, allow me to summarize this statement of Irpen's:

"1. If you keep tagging images, you will meet with fierce resistance;

"2. If you don't allow me to remove your tags, you will be reported for 3RR;

"3. How dare you say I'm threatening you." —Chowbok ☠ 03:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

False summary as obvious to anyone who read the original text. --Irpen 03:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Responses to various points raised here. First, removal of the rfu tag is not the appropriate way to dispute the tag, and reinstating the tag would not be subject to the 3RR. The tag, like an AfD tag, initiates a discussion if the replaceability is disputed, and the proper way to disagree with it is not to remove it, but to add the {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} tag and start discussion on the talk page. Irpen, please do this in the future.

As far as arbcom, I have no idea whether Irpen was hinting that he would bring a case, but I will say with some confidence that the probability of arbcom hearing a case in which the behavior of the editor in question has already been endorsed by Jimbo, whose authority supercedes that of arbcom, is essentially nil.

Irpen, your attacks on Chowbok and accusations of bad faith have gone far enough. They are not contributing to a productive discussion of the issues here, so please stop now. Chowbok, please don't rise to the bait. --Robth^Talk 07:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Please note that the current wording of the RFU tag that dictates how it is to be dealt with (responded with RFUD and never removed under any circumstances) was not achieved by consensus and the tag being protected impede's the tag's improvement. The tag disputes the compliance with policies the same way as the NPOV tag as explained above. Both are subject to 3RR as I explained above in detail. Otherwise, please provide the 3RR policy clause that claims so, preferably not edited WRT to this issue within last, say, two months, like a sneaky "update" of the FU policy. Chobowks claim that RFU tag is similar to AfD does not hold water. That would be IfD. The analog to RFU in article space is "PROD" and note that PROD may be removed at any time and may not be replaced. Nevertheless, I do see an argument to treat RFU similar to POV or ACCURACY tags. But no way you can make a case for similarity between AfD and RFU. As such, RFU certainly falls under 3RR policy. At the same time, it should not of course be removed by edit warring. Removal is acceptable, similar to NPOV or ACCURACY tags, if there seems to me a clear majority formed on the particular case or the tagger failed to explain his/her problems with the image.

Also, from the mere common sense it follows that if the fairuse image has an elaborate and/or self-evident rationale, whoever questions it needs to explain how s/he disputes such rationale. As such, the tag placer should initiate a discussion and tagging the article without initiating such discussion is both uncivil and meaningless as users would have no idea what exactly is disputed. Of course the requirement to explain the user's grief with a particular image obstructs the opportunity of multi-thousand wanton-tagging but judging by the community response, such practice is found highly disruptive. Yes, the burden lies with the FUI uploader to justify the image. However, once justification is provided, the common courtesy as well as common sense requires the tagger to state what exactly is the problem if he sees any.

As of now, I have no idea where this case will end and ArbCom is my least favored outcome. At the same time, Jimbo's authority supersedes that of an ArbCom only when he acts in his God-King capacity or executive (in his Foundation position) authority and not when he simply expresses his opinion. Contrary to what you say, Jimbo said that no argument should go from the "Jimbo said". As long as he opines as a mere Wikipedia editor, the ArbCom would certainly take his opinion with respect but is not bound to accept it. At the same time Jimbo may order things certain way or overrule the ArbCom decision. This, however, hasn't happened yet to the best of my knowledge.

I am not "attacking" Chowbok. Criticizing someone's action is not the same as attacking. If, however, I slipped into attacking Chowbok directly rather than specific action, this was a poor judgement on my part. I will be careful to make sure this does not happen. --Irpen 08:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I was not arguing that Jimbo was endorsing Chowbok in his godking capacity, but rather that I really don't imagine arbcom taking on a case in which even normal-Jimbo has chimed in like this. I could be wrong, but I'd lay good money on my answer.

To the question of tag removal. The tag is not analogous {{NPOV}} tag, which is a disclaimer requesting article improvement. This is a deletion tag. There are two sorts of deletion tags; those such as {{prod}} and the various speedy tags, which are for deletion without discussion, and should be removed in the case of disagreement, and those such as the various *fD tags, which are for deletion with discussion, and for which the appropriate manner of disagreeing with the tagging is to participate in the discussion. This tag is clearly in the second category; once the "disputed" tag has been placed, a discussion should take place. (This isn't originally how the tag worked; originally it was like prod, and the image had to go to WP:CP if it was removed, but that page is horrible for discussion, so it's much better to have the discussion on the image talk page.) --Robth^Talk 08:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Two points. If Chowbok's activity will bring him in front of the ArbCom, it will not be the case about the policy as ArbCom does not rule on policies themselves. ArbCom primarily addresses the behavioral issues. Chowbok's combative style, incivillity, rudeness, arrogance and self-righteoussness are independent of the policy issue. Jimbo likes the policies to be applied and enorced. So do all of us. Jimbo nowhere expressed the approval of Chowbok's attitude towards other users. If Chowbok's behavior continues to be disruptive and the behavior is brought to the ArbCom's attention, ArbCom will look at the behavior narrowly and will accept and reject the case. From what I have seen, ArbCom does not tolerate the disruptive behavior even if claimed to be motivated by good intentions.

Second, I totally agree with you as you say above: "once the disputed tag is placed, the discussion should take place." My point exactly, but good faith and commons sense requires the tagger to point out first how the image, its rationale, licence and source are unsatisfactory taking into account the specific article to which the fair use claim is made. If no rationale is given, rationale is frivolous or obvious false, the tag is self-explanatory but there are quite a few cases where tag is placed atop of a well in good faith provided rationale. If the disputed tag is placed over such rationale, the discussion should take place. If the tagger does not initiate a discussion, the tag is impossible to address, and, additionally, it's placement is incivil, disrespectful towards users who took time to work on the article, searched the suitable image and gave an elaborate explanation. Such tag is analogous to NPOV tag not supplied with the adequate explanation at the article's talk. --Irpen 02:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that if a full rationale is provided, it would be incumbent upon the tagger to explain why that rationale is not a good one, since the case for non-replaceability would already have been made. Note, however, that the rationale must include an explanation of why the image is not replaceable for this to apply (all fair use rationales should include such an explanation, but it is of particular importance here). The rationale on Image:Richard Ian Cox.jpg does not explain why the image would be irreplaceable. --Robth^Talk 02:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Could be. And you in good faith explained that at the image's talk. I responded and a civil discussion is taking place there. Chowbok does not bother to explain anything at all at the article's talk. It makes a whole lot of difference. No tag was ever arbitrary removed to the best of my knowledge if the tagger explained his reasons at talk page elaborating specifically on the fair use claim of the given image towards the given article. Chowbok was requested multiple times to start the conversation that, as you said, are incumbent upon the tagger. No wonder that Chowbok's unexplained tag are received differently than the tags of other user (or of Chowbok), when a reasonable explanation was provided. --Irpen 02:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Note that I said it is incumbent upon the tagger if and only if the rationale on the page asserts that the image is not replaceable. What statement in the rationale for the Richard Cox image do you believe asserts irreplaceability? --Robth^Talk 02:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Depends on the sense of how much effort it is reasonable to demand to obtain a hypothetically possible free replacement. Some demands are realistic, some are not even if hypothetically implementable. I will respond to the conserns you have about that particular image at the image's talk. Please do raise such issues in the future and explain to your disciples that they owe the counterexplanations if the original explanation is presented. Such counterexplanation should be reasonably detailed to address the specific claims in connection to the specific article as each case differs from another. --Irpen 03:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. --Robth^Talk 07:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

...Yet, admiteddly. Too many things at opnce. If you mean the question about Cox page, I will continue the discussion at the image page where it belongs. --Irpen 09:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Non-free photos of bands

There is an interesting debate going on at Image talk:Wheatus 2005.jpg (regarding Image:Wheatus 2005.jpg). It has a potential effect on many other images, and I'm really not sure where I fall on this. If you'd like to chime in, your input would be valued.

Also, did you know about Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abu badali? I thought you might be interested. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Interview for Wikipedia Weekly?

Hi!

You may or may not be aware of the Wikipedia Weekly podcast, which is now approaching its eighth weekly episode, on which I'm a regular presenter. This episode, we'd like to cover the Esperanza dispute now that the dust has had time to settle, and would very much like for you to come on the show to talk to us about it. We'll also be inviting a few representatives of Esperanza to provide an opposing view.

All that would be required are a microphone, a reasonably fast internet connection, and a free copy of Skype. We'll likely be recording at around 1500 UTC on Saturday, although feel free to suggest an alternative time if this wouldn't suit you. You can also join us in #wikipediaweekly on FreeNode prior to the podcast. Thanks for your time, and I hope you can join us on the weekend. :) Daveydweeb (^chat/_review!) 00:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm.. at the moment, we only have a single user on your side of the debate: you. :) Would you be able to suggest someone to join you, or to fill in if you can't make it? Perhaps User:Cyde? Daveydweeb (^chat/_review!) 01:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Cyde has been very active in the post-MfD reorganization of Esperanza; Doug Bell, Moreschi, and JoeSmack are three names that spring to mind as having been very active during the deletion discussion, and I suppose one of them might be interested. I would probably be available at around that time on Saturday, and I do have Skype (although with a very bad laptop mic). So yes, I would probably be available. --Robth^Talk 02:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Did you know?

On 30 November, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Thasian rebellion, 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.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 08:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Image talk:Churchill and Eisenhower.jpg

Hi Robth. I noticed you do a good amount of work on copyright issues. Would you mind taking a look at this and let me know what you think? I would appreciate your time and comments. Thanks! Regards, Accurizer 16:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Non-free photos of bands

Hello again. I've put some thoughts together at User:Quadell/non-free photos of bands about whether (and when) non-free photos of bands are replaceable. If you have an opinion and want to weigh in, I'd value your input. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Horizontal directional drilling Deletion

I noticed you deleted Horizontal directional drilling, I assume it is some sort of copy vio , but the page still exists in another language. as the history and discussion page has now gone, I have no way of salveging something, the article was comprehensive as I remember, and the vio just needed a simple rewording of one paragraph. I had no input to the article, but it was interesting and useful for explaning the Tunnels under Fremantle Prison Can the deletion be reversed, and the article fixed of any copy vio, or is this not possible?

03:37, 16 November 2006 Robth (Talk | contribs) deleted "Horizontal directional drilling" (content was: '{{copyvio|url=http://www.bakerhughes.com/bakerhughes/_HDD/intro.htm}}nl:Horizontaal gestuurd boren')

Thanks for your help.Ghostieguide 01:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't restore the page, as all revisions contain copyrighted material, but I have posted the non-copyvio contents at User:Robth/sandbox2. --Robth^Talk 01:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

OKOKok...

HERE is a "Free use" pic of Hostettler ({{PD-USGov-Congress-Bio}}). 68.39.174.238 03:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Kohlberg's stages of moral development

Heya Robth! No worries! There are still some things that need sourcing/doing for the article. If you hit the talk page, I'm in the middle of a Good Article assessment. The page needs a more thorough and sourced Criticisms section (Carol Gilligan, among others are good critics) and a Continued Relevance section (James Rest and his Defining Issues Test builds from Kohlberg, among others). I've gone to a couple of (local) libraries, but they are now tapped. A breadth of Jane Loevinger, James Fowler and Martin Hoffman are other authors that I can't get, those would be good too.

Thanks for still helping out, I've really been trying hard to make this article stellar. Good psych articles are unfortunately pretty hard to find 'round wikipedia, so i hope to change that a bit with this one. JoeSmack ^Talk 20:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Those all look fantastic. For the James Rest, see if you can't find a book specifically on his Defining Issues Test creation/data, although I've seen that book of his you mentioned before - it is also good stuff. As for journal articles, I have those covered: a few days ago I discovered they haven't cut off my digital library access yet even though i'm graduated. This means all studies that have been scanned i can still get to. Books I do not though; especially people like Martin Hoffman, Jane Loevinger and James Fowler, who mostly have their work concentrated in book form. Oh, and see if you can't find this book: [2]. I sourced it some in the article, but I don't have access to it. It'll be a wealth of knowledge if you can catch it, especially for his Moral Judgment Interview, which might stand to be forked into its own article. Again, thanks for all the help around this, I really appreciated it! :) JoeSmack ^Talk 22:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry Robth. Here it is:

• Colby, Anne (1987). The Measurement of Moral Judgment. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521244471. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

JoeSmack ^Talk 02:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Heya, been poking around to start James Rest and Defining Issues Test (they both need an article for adding to the Continued Relevance section for Kohlberg's stages) and found that these two sources would be good to grab:

• Development in judging moral issues. Rest, J. (1979)
• Moral development: Advances in research and theory. Rest, J. with Barnett, R., Bebeau, M., Deemer, D., Getz, I., Moon, Y., Spickelmeier, J. Thoma, S., and Volker, J. (1986)

I know the first is out of print (your lib may still have it though) but is the first book where he pours over the theory. The second book there is a compilation of like 500 studies with data for validity. JoeSmack ^Talk 16:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

refu-c

Hey, whatever you did to refu-c made it so now it warns you it must subst it even if you did. I reverted it; can you take a look and see what the problem is? Thanks... —Chowbok ☠ 01:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Should be ok now. I'm not very good with all the <noinclude> tags and what not, but I think I nabbed it (even though I don't know why it wasn't working in the first place). --Robth^Talk 01:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Yes

Of course you may bring attention to my essay... I wrote it for it to be read. Of course I expect that my assertions will be controversial and plenty of folks will disagree, but that's just the nature of things. The easiest way to link to the essay is by using [[User:Matt Britt/DJDW]]. -- mattb @ 2006-12-04T21:05Z

Image question

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Image:ShadowDancer.jpg - should I delete this or not? I have questions about this. It was submitted as a promo photo by the band and depicts a lineup that there may never be another image of, from the past, the lineup on a 1995 album by this group. The band leader actually scanned liner notes he had laid out because he could not find the original photo by Joe Fish that he'd used for the liner notes and he emailed me that as a promo photo in the past. Now with all the "don't use promo photos" talk I have at least temporarily removed the image from the article. I replaced it with an "album cover" of a different, earlier album. The photographer for the photo involved is too busy to write back and give CC licensing or else not inclined to give it because I emailed him and another person who knows him also did. So I don't have CC licensing and it's basically a scan from a liner notes photo submitted as a promo photo by the band, who paid the photographer in full for the photo originally and that is why they felt it fine to use as a promo photo. I do not understand the policy on promo photos. I only know chowbok disapproves of them and goes about tagging images if they're promo photos so I thought I had to get rid of all fair use promo photos. So all I know to do is avoid promo photos like the plague even if the band gives it to me as promo and the lineup no longer exists and it is not possible to get a photo of these people. Maybe some day someone in the lineup will miraculously turn up with a "live picture" or something, so maybe it is "possible" that one will turn up? If you feel it should be marked for deletion, the photo is not now in the article at least for now due to my concerns I do things right, and feel free to mark it for deletion if it should be or let me know if I can use it or not. Thank you. – Bebop 23:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The issue is not with promo photos; it's with fair use images being useed where a free one could be created. If the subject in question is a now-dissolved band lineup that is discussed at length in the article, a promo photo would be entirely appropriate to use a promo photo; just add a fair use rationale explaining why the image is necessary and not replaceable. If a fair use image is appropriate, a promophoto is probably the best kind to use. It's just that for many subjects, no kind of fair use image is appropriate (this page might make that a little clearer).

I will consider putting this fair use rationale about how this is a dissolved lineup of the band. Thank you. I will also look at the link you include. – Bebop 16:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Another question: my understanding from you is that if a scan is made of an album photo by me (as opposed to something sent to me by a band leader who submits a closeup scan of a tiny part of a linernotes page from a photo he had paid for, as an official promo photo of a past lineup), I'm not allowed to crop it and you told me that I can't use an "album cover" rationale to illustrate people in the picture, just to illustrate the album itself. Thus if the back of Behind the Magnolia Curtain album has two photos, one of which shows people who played on the album, I can't crop in on that and use it (and I have not) to show the band members. And the back side of the album is too hard to see in detail in the reduced size I would use in an article layout. The people would be unrecognizable if I just showed the entire back cover. When an "album cover" rationale is used for an image, must it be the ENTIRE cover without cropping? We are not allowed to discuss in the photo cutline something in one photo on an album cover that has two photos on the back, right? It must just illustrate the "back of the album" and must show the entire back cover without cropping? So if I had had a paragraph describing part of the back cover, I could not close in on that pertinent part to show it in a cropped "album cover" illustration -- only can show the entire back cover or front cover? (I don't remember reading where we can't crop an album cover, but I'm thinking this is the case.) Note: I have not written a paragraph relevant to part of the back cover, nor will I because it would be too much detail for the article anyway, but I was thinking about how to handle all album covers in the future. Thanks. – Bebop 23:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on this, but I think that if some small detail of the back cover needed to be zoomed in on for some reason, a rationale could be provided, although {{albumcover}} would not be appropriate; it would have to be {{Non-free fair use in}} with a detailed rationale. Is this the case here? In other words, is there something about this small section of the album cover which is particularly worth discussing in the article? --Robth^Talk 04:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The back album cover detail is worth discussing in terms of showing people in an early lineup (not the original lineup, but close to it since this was the first album), I guess. In the past you mentioned that you couldn't use an albumcover tag to illustrate a lineup so I was thinking I couldn't do that. I guess I could if I talked about how the back cover displays a photo, but actually that is mostly just relevant for the photo's cut line (the info you put under the photo), so should I skip it and only use the front album cover since I don't want to introduce a paragraph in the article itself strictly about the back cover photo if that's what you mean I'd need to do for it to be appropriate. Another photo on the back album cover has historical interest but probably should not go into the article. It should probably be discussed by someone else outside wikipedia. The article can only have so much detail without going too far. – Bebop 16:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Herbert Saffir

I'd like to re-create the article on Herbert Saffir without copyvio, but I'm having trouble finding sources which don't back-track to the Wikipedia article you deleted, and the copyright problems page doesn't have a real history or usable archive. What was the source of the material which was copied for that article? Argyriou (talk) 07:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It was this site. --Robth^Talk 07:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I just found it. I've re-created the article at Herbert Saffir, with some rewording to hopefully avoid copyright problems. Argyriou (talk) 08:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

And now it's been speedied by an admin who didn't bother to read the article. I'll recreate it later. Article has been restored. Thank you for your help. Argyriou (talk) 18:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

fair use

"In the past, however, attempts to use Mediawiki:Sitenotice or Mediawiki:Watchdetails to publicize policy proposals have been met with strong disapproval from the community."

can you give examples.--Zigzag8 20:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is the best example. If you look through the history of those two pages, you'll see that they are generally only used for things like the arbcom elections, board elections, fundraising drive, and announcement of major changes to the site interface. --Robth^Talk 20:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Another protected image

Hey, thanks for unprotecting that image. Can you also take a look at Image:Australian $10 note 1988.jpg? That's probably not supposed to be protected anymore either. —Chowbok ☠ 03:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Robth^Talk 04:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. —Chowbok ☠ 05:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Rinat Shaham 2.jpeg

A copy of a message to Chobok:

Image:Rinat Shaham 2.jpeg

I have just noticed that the above image has been removed. I got it personally from the artist Rinat Shaham to upload it, and I believed I put all the necessary copyrights notices. Pls advise what is needed to return it.

Micke5000 07:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The image was not released under a free license, and we do not use unfree images of most living people. If Mr. Shinam agrees to release it under a free license (no rights reserved, GFDL, or CC-by-SA are three examples of such licenses), please forward an email in which he agrees to do so to permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org, and the image can be used. --Robth^Talk 15:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Doing something about the ridiculous date autoformatting/linking mess

Dear Robth—you may be interested in putting your name to, or at least commenting on this new push to get the developers to create a parallel syntax that separates autoformatting and linking functions. IMV, it would go a long way towards fixing the untidy blueing of trivial chronological items, and would probably calm the nastiness between the anti- and pro-linking factions in the project. The proposal is to retain the existing function, to reduce the risk of objection from pro-linkers. Tony 05:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Meetup

It was nice to meet you on Saturday night. Too bad we didn't get to talk more. I'll see you around. - crz crztalk 04:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

ICICI Lombard

Hi, you deleted this page while there was some discussion about it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 November 22/Articles. Is there a good reason not to revert to a non-copyvio version instead of deleting? Thanks! -- Paddu 06:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The reason that I deleted was that the early versions of the article appeared to also be copied from a different part of the site; let me take a look back at this one and make sure that was the case (I'm pretty sure I'm thinking of the right article). --Robth^Talk 06:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that was the article I was thinking of. Copyvio all the way back; the one that got caught was just the latest addition. --Robth^Talk 06:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll remove it from Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 November 22/Articles. -- Paddu 20:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

otrs

thanks for the message although it puzzles me. Isn't the default ation after replying = closing? I'll be more careful anyway -- Drini 21:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Meetup NYC

Hey, just wanted to say hi and thank you for coming to the WikiMeetup in NYC this past weekend. —ExplorerCDT 04:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello random admin at the top of Special:Log

I don't want to be a pain in the arse here, but I'm looking for someone communicate a simple message to another admin. I'll try to be brief... well, as brief as I ever am, anyway:

• My simple request at ANI
• Pschemp's pointless jibe
• My possibly provocative response
• (No link, now deleted) I try to communicate, again perhaps provocativly.
• (No link, now deleted) Pschemp deletes it
• (No link, now deleted) I say I'm going back to ignoring her but ask that she do the same... again perhaps I could have been nicer.
• Pschemp deletes, restores and protects her user page

I'm not even asking for anyone to tell Pschemp that having a free kick at me on ANI and then deleting/protecting her talk page when I comment there isn't exactly sterling administrative conduct. I'm really not trying to make a stink, but hooly dooly, if we want examples of how not to use adminstrator privledges here it is. Wait, I wasn't going to go down that path, sorry...

Anyway, I'm sure Pschemp's a lovely person and a great hockey player, but the burr up her bumm with regards to me needs to go. I'm sure she and I could argue about proper use of sysop rights all day, but I'd just like someone impartial to review the history, tell her I haven't been harrasing her, and get her to not play whack-a-mole every time she sees me.

If you don't want to do this, please do just say "no." I'll simply get on with my life then. -152.91.9.144 05:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I have spoken to Pschemp about this on IRC. I don't know enough of the backstory here to really comment, but I think the real lesson here is that it takes two to tango. Pschemp's first comment was ill advised; it was also meaningless if you ignored it. Your decision to press the issue and follow her to her talk page was also ill advised. Ultimately, the suggestion you made in your last deleted edit (that the two of you ignore each other) seems best; I suggest that you follow it, as I believe Pschemp will from here on. There doesn't seem to be any real need for the two of you to cross paths, and I think that you will both be happier if you try not to. --Robth^Talk 06:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Beauty, I'll be good. Thanks mate. - 152.91.9.144 06:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:P86.jpg

Can you look at this? Something weird is going on here. It says it's on Commons, but the "Image" link is blue, and it has templates that aren't on the Commons page. When I edit it, I don't see those templates there, either. I've never run across anything like this in the thousands of images I've looked at. —Chowbok ☠ 07:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixed now. Someone had created an image page on en: for an image on commons (this is possible to do if you click "edit" while looking at a commons image). I deleted the page, both because it was confusing and because it looks like the page is soon to be deleted on commons. --Robth^Talk 13:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Advice needed

Hey, can I ask your advice about something? You know I've had this page set up where I've got your comments at User:Chowbok/Robth's RFU Explanation. User:Jeffness, annoyed with me some image deletion or other, is insisting on adding a lengthy unsigned rebuttal to the page. It's not vandalism, exactly, and when I revert, he throws WP:OWN at me and threatens me with 3RR. I'm honestly not sure what to do here. I realize I don't own it, but am I really obligated to give him equal time in a page I set up in my userspace explaining the situation as I see it? How should I proceed? —Chowbok ☠ 05:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

This is well outside the sort of stuff I usually specialize in, but my understanding (which seems to be supported by Wikipedia:User page#Ownership and editing of pages in the user space is that, while the community has the right to tell you if something in your userspace is or isn't ok, barring an intervention in accordance with some established principle you're free to have it contain the stuff you want; in other words, you do own the pages in your userspace, within certain limits. In this case, I think you would be within your rights to move the stuff to the talk page or remove it entirely; you aren't presenting your page as official policy, but rather as an explanation of why you are doing what you are doing, and it isn't incumbent on you to present someone's rebuttal to the policy at the same time. If Jeffness wants to set up his rebuttal in his own userspace and link to it in discussions, he too would be perfectly within his rights to do so. I'll go see what I can do with regard to this situation. --Robth^Talk 05:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Wrong, while this is userspace, this is presented as the policy to justify unpolicy extreme actions, by a particular user. See also WP:OWN. Jefness is correct in editing it. His edits may be discussed and if wrong, removed, but based on their being wrong not based on the fact that the page is in Chowbok's space. Chowbok should open the discussion with his oponent rather than remove his contributions. --Irpen 05:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The page is not being presented as policy, but rather as a quick explanation to link to in discussions. If Jeffness wishes to prepare a counter-explanation in his own userspace he is free to. I really don't want a flare-up over this (I'm halfway through an article I want to finish before bed), but I believe that policy clearly supports Chowbok's right to have such an explanatory page in her userspace. Were she actually presenting it as policy, that would be a different problem. Just to be clear, however, it should probably have {{Essay}} on the top. --Robth^Talk 05:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes it should and most Essays are edited by other users. --Irpen 05:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Dungeons & Dragons related images

Hi, you recently tagged a large number of images I uploaded. However, I am interested to know why you tagged some of them with 'no source' and 'no rationale', yet deleted others straight away. I am confident I can provide information about both factors for all of them, if given some time, but I want to know why some have been deleted straight away. Please reply on my own talk page. Thanks. J Milburn 11:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

El Greco

Thanks for the tweaks you make in El Greco!--Yannismarou 15:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

California Superbike School

You've deleted the above named article, but I have been unable to find any reason other than a supposed copyright violation (of which there is none). Can you explain? --Beano9763 22:55, 17 December 2006 (GMT)

There was a copyright infringement; the entire article was copied from this page. --Robth^Talk 01:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleted article

Hi Rob,

I didn't know where else to leave you a message...sorry, but I would like to know what I did wrong on my Wikipedia page that caused you to delete it. I'd like to rectify the situation. Thanks.

Berniedexter 17:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Pics07's laziness (possible trollery?)

I noticed this person while cleaning up Category:Wikify from December 2006 and I couldn't help but notice that every single article is a poorly typed stub meeting the criteria for {{db-empty}} (except the ones whose subjects either actually mattered to other users soon enough to escape this fate or were turned into redirects). He hasn't bothered to read up on any of the things left for him to read on his talkpage and left this on Zagalejo's talkpage, asking the guy (?) to edit his articles and did the same thing to Wizardman. Somehow I don't think this behavior is normal for an inexperienced user. I've seen one-hit wonders put more effort into their work! Am I only who finds it strange that someone who intends to stick around can't manage to do better than this, the one and only contribution this guy whose contribs page I'm using as an example because there's no evidence that he's been here since June?--Rmky87 22:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The articles are too short; it's clear that the guy hasn't gotten the hang of writing for Wikipedia yet. Still, many people take time to learn; the way this guy is writing suggests that he conceives of his role as one of creating a substub for a topic and looking for someone to expand it. I would approach the guy on his talk page, explain that substubs like this aren't very useful to us, and show him a few examples of wikified, referenced articles that should be easy for him to imitate in the future. Everyone learns their way around the place at different paces, and I'm sure that this guy will be willing to improve his editing if you politely suggest a few things he could do better. --Robth^Talk 02:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You've seen this before? Because asking other people directly to clean up after his laziness (he couldn't just learn how to make external jumps, bold text, categorize, and create a references section from the "How to edit a page" page that someone gave s/h/it days ago?) is kind of weird.--Rmky87 23:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, like I said, it implies a certain conception of his role in the article creation process; he seems to think of himself as a "topic-starter" or something; it's hard to read much into people's actions on the internet, but that seems to be his approach. What needs to be explained to him is that just having a sentence for a topic doesn't do us any good, really, and that if he's going to be starting these articles he should add more than just substubs. I can't say I've seen this particular behavior before, but there's a first time for everything. --Robth^Talk 01:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

School Article

Over the past months, my friend and I have created and periodicly edited out schools wikipedia article, William Lyon Mackenzie Collegiate Institute. At first, we used infromation from our school agenda (such as clubs and sports teams) that was writen by the school and added it to the article. The user user:Centrx said that this information should not be used in a wikipedia article because it comes from the school (he stated this in the schools talk page,talk:William Lyon Mackenzie Collegiate Institute). Just because the information comes from the school does that mean i can't add it to the page? Joesixpac 03:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has to limit the scope of its coverage to keep the amount of content we have manageable, and one of the tests we impose to determine whether or not to cover a subject is whether that subject has received significant coverage in third party sources (i.e. other than its own publications). This isn't an area I spend a lot of time on, but I believe Centrx's statement is accurate. --Robth^Talk 01:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

DYK

On December 21, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Rhium, 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.

- Thanks for this interesting article Robth. Shame that you could not get the diagram but we are on a tight schedule. Happy editing, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I should have told you guys; I did make the diagram, but it was just in the body of the article. It wasn't a very "main-pageable" diagram; just a bunch of ships in concentric circles, not very interesting unless you had a full explanation of what was going on. --Robth^Talk 06:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:RfA

Thanks for you kind words. I've given a response in my talk page. By the way, I am jealous of you, because you were there! Why am I living in Athens?! But this will not last for ever!!--Yannismarou 18:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You earned the praise, and it would be my pleasure to co-nominate you. The meetup was a lot of fun; hopefully someday there will be enough Wikipedians all around the globe for everyone to have a chance to attend one. By the way, we now have Thucydides up on Wikisource. You can link to specific sections with the format [[s:History of the Peloponnesian War/Book 1#1:96|1.96-97]], which gives 1.96-97 or, using a citation template I made in my userspace, {{subst:User:Robth/t|1|96|-97}}, which gives .

Just thought I'd pass that news along. --Robth^Talk 23:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I will. I have neglected that!--Yannismarou 14:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)