User talk:Robth/Archive 5

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Meadowridge_School. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Wakeling2 00:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Dear Robth, Please consider undeletion of Meadowridge School content. I am the webmaster for www.meadowridge.bc.ca and offer permission to reproduce this content within the wikipedia posting.

It was suggested it the article's peer review that it should be copy editted. Could you please do the job. Kyriakos 23:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'll take another look at it this evening or tomorrow. It looked fine to me before, but perhaps there is more to be done. --Robth^Talk 23:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

This is deeply embarassing, I hadn't even noted that I had rollbacked your page. I'm really sorry, I've already sent a post to Kyriakos. Ciao,--Aldux 00:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

No worries, I was a little puzzled but no harm done. --Robth^Talk 00:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

What do you think about the article now? Kyriakos 06:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

It looks good. Modern sources are more in evidence than before, which was my major concern last time. Thumbs up. --Robth^Talk 06:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Do you think it could pass FA? Kyriakos 06:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think so. I would guess that there will probably be one or two issues raised on the nomination, but nothing that can't be dealt with . --Robth^Talk 06:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I nominated the article if you would like to go and leave a comment. Kyriakos 07:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

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

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

Thank you.--Yannismarou 15:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Come see: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Club of New York. —ExplorerCDT 14:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

The December 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 23:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Rob, with respect to your most recent response to me, I think I can find a common ground with a lot of what you're saying. Your views definitely aren't my first choice preference on how to deal with fair use images of living people on wikipedia, but it seems like a genuine attempt to compromise between our desire to get images and our desire to get free images, which I can't say for a lot of other people involved in the discussion (including, perhaps, myself heretofore). It seems to me that the key is to develop some kind of a hierarchy of replaceability, and then to try to figure out where to draw the line. I'd say that we both agree that images of things like screen shots, album covers, copyrighted works of art, are irreplaceable, and that we can use fair use. We would seem also to agree that things like generic items or things (e.g. stapler, dog), commercial products (Playstation 3, Toyota Camry), or publically accessible buildings (Eiffel Tower, Hagia Sophia) are replaceable, and should be pre-emptively deleted. Living people seem to be somewhere in the middle, and is probably where the disagreement lies, but I don't see how this should be an impenetrable obstacle to some kind of agreement. Daniel's proposals, as originally constituted, strike me as a really good compromise. Easily accessible people, like US politicians who are likely to have been photographed by the government, or people who appear frequently in public at events where photography is permitted, or what not, can be deleted. Pictures of recluses, or pictures showing people in some particular (iconic) part of their career, or what not, should stay. And for the cases in between, we should try to look at the individual situation and assess how likely replacement is before we delete. While I would prefer a somewhat more inclusive approach towards fair use images, this seems like a reasonable way to try to clarify the situation, and perhaps get some buy-in from people on both sides, although I'm not terribly hopeful on that count, given the number of people on both sides who seem to have entrenched themselves in their positions. john k 07:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree almost entirely with what you have said here, and I think this has to be the way forward. You can see some of my thoughts on this at User:Quadell/non-free photos of bands. We need to figure out when we help ourselves and when we hurt ourselves by deleting an image. I honestly haven't quite pinned down where I fall on some specific types of cases, and that is the sort of thing we need to hash out. Quadell's page that I linked to above is an example of the sort of brainstorming session we need to have more of. Thank you for coming here in this spirit; this is the sort of thing we need to break through the impasse we've been at. I have been, unfortunately, a bit too burned out from this debate to participate much in the creation of the replaceable fair use guideline page up till now, but I will be trying to increase my involvement from now on. Hopefully we can craft something there that makes its case to both sides of the argument and derives its derives its rules clearly from its principles. --Robth^Talk 08:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I just did some rephrasing in the lead of El Greco, which is currently in WP:FAC. Can you please check the lead for any prose deficiencies? Thanks in advance!--Yannismarou 19:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Robth! Could you tell me what happened to the image for the train article? I don't think it violates any copyright laws. (Wikimachine 01:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC))Reply

The drawing was a clear derivative work of the original copyvio photograph (composition and substance nearly identical). As such, it was an infringement of the original image's copyright. --Robth^Talk 05:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think that your copyright interpretation's unreasonable. By the way could you clarify what you mean by "composition" and "substance"?

I have three other images, which according to you, would be copyright violations, but, by the editors around the articles in which the images were used, were accepted.

Here are the following reasons why the drawing is not a copyright violation.

• Albeit it be derivative or not, you cannot ignore the fact that all HSR-350x will look the same from a certain angle, and that there are many photographs for the train. Each and one of those photographs are NOT copyright infringements of the other.

• Your interpretation would qualify for duplication of an artistic rendering or construction, where the uniqueness of the idea and design identify the subject. This is none of that.

• And in order for the drawing to be accurate, it has to depend on an actual photograph. Reasonability bypasses any possibility of ill intention. (Wikimachine 18:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC))Reply

Could you reply?

 

 

 

A drawing that is a synthesis of a number of photographs would be acceptable. A drawing that is a near tracing of one photograph is not. --Robth^Talk 07:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your reply! I did not trace the drawing, nor did I draw from the original HSR-350x jpg image that the other Wikipedian put.

Here are the following images that disprove copyright violation.

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]

They're all from the Daum.net image search [6].

• [7]
• [8]
• [9]

They're allf rom the google.com image search[10]

If you approve, I'll re-submit the image! (Wikimachine 16:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC))Reply

How was your image created? Certain elements of the composition (the angle, the yellow stripe) are strikingly similar to that of the original coprighted image. We try to be "good citizens" with respect to copyright law, so it is necessary to be cautious about using possible derivatives. --Robth^Talk 01:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

First, I searched for an image to draw from on daum.net... I collected what I thought were the best images. Among those (all from the same angle, because I thought it would look best from that angle if it were in the right side of the article), I just looked at one of the images & then first sketched it with a Steidtler 2H pencil & then colored it in with pencils. The paper is very large -about the size of 3 x 2 giant hands stretched out together. (Wikimachine 02:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC))Reply

Here are some of my other images.

(Wikimachine 02:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC))Reply

Unfortunately, a sketch of an image is a derivative work of that image, so, unless there is any evidence that the original is in the public domain, the sketch would not be permissible. --Robth^Talk 18:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

You read my previous replies, right? I don't think I should ask others as well. (Wikimachine 21:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC))Reply

I've asked about it in the help desk. But meanwhile, let me reason with you.

(P.S. The yellow stripe can be seen in more than 1 pic - 3 I think)

A photographer takes image of one of a famous artist's paintings without the artist permission (still living). Then that's a copyright infringement, right? There is only one painting with the techniques, styles, and elements of art applied by the artist.

And if you were to scan a picture of a car & then release it as your own work, then it's also copyright infringement.

But if you were to take pic of the car yourself - even from the same angle & distance, it's not copyright infringement. Nor are each and every one of the pics copyright infringements of the other. Then, even if my drawing is similar to the pics online, under the framework that each and every one of the pics are not copyright infringements of the other (as long as they're not scanned & copied or traced), nor should my drawing be.

My drawing is unique. No tracing. The colors I put in the drawing are unique. No sign of green in the actual pic. Nor any sign of blue. I put them. No sign of orange, I used the color. The angles are a little different too, I noticed. There was no ill intention of making a derivative work. (Wikimachine 21:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC))Reply

I may have misunderstood you, but if your drawing is an artistic interpretation of a single copyrighted image (as opposed to a synthesis of several images that transmits the factual information without duplicating the copyrighted composition) it would be a copyright infringment. Is the drawing based on a single image, or on many? --Robth^Talk 23:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's based on single image, although I picked several images of the same angle. I think that this was in the highest resolution, so I picked it. (Wikimachine 23:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC))Reply

Let me add, I tried to draw the train, I didn't try to duplicate. I even checked on other images to make sure that I wasn't missing anything. Look, you can't expect me to make a "golden medium" image using a super computer to map out the "average" coordinates of the defining points. That's completely impossible. The fact that I gathered several images from the same angle at similar distance is good enough. (Wikimachine 23:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC))Reply

Hey! On the help desk, user Natalya says that "how I drew the image" should answer the question. So I replied with this.

Thx. But here's the gray line. I searched all the images that had the nose on the right and the rest of the body stretching to the left of the image's frame (b/c I thought that would look best when placed in the right side of the article). And then, I picked the highest resolution image with the best overall "look" and color mix & drew. Would that qualify as "studied a number of different images and then drew one of your own". Please understand, it would have been impossible for me to draw an accurate image while making a "averaged coordinate-mapped" drawing & I focused on accuracy (b/c encyclopedias should be accurate). (Wikimachine 23:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC))Reply

I'm on the fence on this one, but if you were examining multiple images and then, as you say, attempted to "draw the train", that might fly. One question, however; are the numbers in the bottom right of the image an element of the image you worked from? --Robth^Talk 00:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

No, I took picture of the image that I drew with a Sony digital camera. So, the time showed automatically. Thanks! (Wikimachine 04:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC))Reply

That would suggest that your image is drawn rather closely from the photograph of the source image; which, in turn, would suggest that it is derivative in nature. I'm sorry, but I don't feel comfortable undeleting this on my own discretion. If you would like a broader group to examine this, you might try WP:DRV. --Robth^Talk 19:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

 

Ah. I didn't read this & uploaded... let me ask members in my WikiProject Korea, and some other organizations to view this page. Is that ok? (Wikimachine 20:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC))Reply

Sure. Since the image is currently visible, you could put it on IfD if you're looking for broader input. --Robth^Talk 20:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I forgot what IfD stood for. Like this? (Wikimachine 20:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC))Reply

IfD is the deletion discussion page for images. It would probably be the best place to get broader input on whether or not this image would be acceptable. --Robth^Talk 21:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Wait a second. "That would suggest that your image is drawn rather closely from the photograph of the source image". What do you mean by this? I drew the image, and then used a camera to make a digital copy of my drawing. (Wikimachine 02:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC))Reply

Oh! That's very different! I thought you were saying you'd taken a digital picture of the source image and then redrawn that or something (which would be an odd way to do it, but hey, people are weird sometimes). So that makes things different. The only real way to decide, though, is to look at the source image and your drawing side by side. What is the source image. --Robth^Talk 06:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

here! Thanks! (Wikimachine 21:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC))Reply

Looks ok to me, actually. Sorry this was such a hassle, and good work on the drawing. --Robth^Talk 01:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

So it's okay? I'm putting it in the article. Thanks for all this hassle! (Wikimachine 05:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC))Reply

Yes, in light of your statement that you were attempting to draw the train, not the source image, and the less than total similarity between the images, I think its just on the safe side. Thanks again for your patience. --Robth^Talk 05:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello;

My name is Jay Madriaga. I had an article titled "Karazenpo Go Shinjutsu" in Wikipedia. You removed this article citing copyright infringement because - as you stated, it was copied from the web site www.umaassociation.com.

I am the writer of this article, and therfore could not have violated any copyrights of any sort. Below is an email to me - from the owners of the web site that you cited, and state that I violated. Clearly, you can see that thsi is not the case. PLEASE restore the article. Wikipedia is about information, not supresion of information.

From: [redacted] To: [redacted] Sent: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 5:01 PM Subject: Re: YOUR HISTORY

Dear Mr. Madriaga;

My husband and I were away for the holidays and this is the first time we have seen either of your messages. However, your protest makes no sense as the first paragraph of our history page clearly states..."This history is copyrighted material by J.Madriaga. It may be used freely provided proper acknowledgement is made to the source of the material." How much clearer than that can we be? We have been posting your history on our web site for years and we have always given you credit for the material!

[REDACTED]

"Jmadriaga 14:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)"Reply

The note on that page is a sufficient release, and I have undeleted the page accordingly. --Robth^Talk 22:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

You deleted the page I created about StartCom Enterprise Linux. Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Startcom

I request from you to put it back and then explain what's wrong with it! This is not spam, but information! As it is found at hundreds of other such entries at wikipedia about similar Linux distributions! What did hurt you exactly? Wikipedia requests fair use....but is this fair use, deleting the work of others?

The page was written in a promotional, not encyclopedic, tone, and thus failed to conform to our content policies. You may wish to examine our neutrality policy and possibly also our conflict of interest policy. --Robth^Talk 22:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that you provided Image:Natalie Season 6.jpg with a fair use rationale (diff). I am not sure how to define low-resolution (criterion 6), but the image is 2600×3900 pixels so I tagged it with {{fair use reduce}}. --Oden 22:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hiya. I tuned in a bit late on this one. The article is cited a fair bit, but has the disadvantage of, y'know, not existing anymore... It's certainly a valid topic, though, as any number of local restaurants here in Hong Kong attest! If I had a record of what used to be in it, I would probably go about contributing to a version that doesn't violate anybody's copyright. I'm probably not quite motivated enough to start completely from scratch. Any suggestions? Waitak 12:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

What used to be in it was a huge list copied from this page. As for not starting from scratch, I'm afraid I don't have any suggestions for you. --Robth^Talk 17:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Don't worrry about it, I found the ones that Semperf told me about plus more. Kyriakos 21:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I re wrote the after math section do you think tht any other sections need to be addressed and re written. Kyriakos 21:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Robth. You come highly recommended by User:Yannismarou! Yannis reviewed the Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan article in an earlier peer review, and after I exhausted his suggestions, he recommended that I solicit your feedback. I would really appreciate if you would take the time to read the article and provide your comments at the article's current peer review page. Kind regards Cimm^[talk] 00:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I apologize for not getting to this earlier; I was away from Wikipedia for a while. It appears that several other experienced copyeditors have gone through the article by now; I'll take a look if you still feel the need, but otherwise things seem well enough taken care of. --Robth^Talk 06:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Robth! Happy New Year 2007! Hope you had a good time during the holidays.

I have updated the Athenian constitution diagram again (See the usual place Talk:Athenian democracy#Diagram_of_the_Constitution_of_Athens). I have also posted a new diagram of the "Legislative process of the Atheninans". I welcome your comments on that one. For the first, I think we are ready to include it inside the article, aren't we? (I have already done so in the French language article.) -- Mathieugp 07:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey Robth, we are planning of taking the article to FAC soon, so could you please have one last look and tell me your opinion? Thanks. Kyriakos 21:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

That looks good. I made a number of small changes, and a few larger alterations as well, particularly to the section about Nabis' reforms; see what you think. --Robth^Talk 05:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive. This week Peloponnesian War was selected to be improved to featured article status. Hope you can help.

AzaBot 12:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry about that. It appears a member of my family felt like taking advantage of my absence from the computer, :P Thank you for the diff.

No problem. I figured there had to be some sort of screwup; it would be very odd to see a good contributor suddenly start vandalising. --Robth^Talk 00:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Robth, I've been working on this two articles and if you have the time could you give them a copy-edit. Thanks in advance. Kyriakos 11:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

The January 2007 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 21:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC) Reply

The January 2007 issue of the WikiProject Greece newsletter (the first issue after the merger of the History of Greece Wikiproject with the Wikiproject Greece) has been published.

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

Thank you.--Yannismarou 20:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For preventing a new cataclysm at Wikipedia:Fair use criteria by introducing a simple yet incredibly just rewording, I award you this barnstar. ReyBrujo 05:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Much appreciated, and I'm glad that at least one little dispute worked out cleanly there; if only they were all so easy. --Robth^Talk 06:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

The Roman-Spartan War has been nominated for FAC, could you please have a say. Thanks. Kyriakos 00:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, So far there is nothing from the person. What can I do? Shall I change the license category? Rajsingam 15:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

You removed an image from my userpage a while ago(Image:Judy_Garland_1939.jpg), and I am curious about something. When I placed it there, it was a public domain image. On dec 31, 2006, the license changed to a FU tag. How is that possible? And don't you think that, given the fact I had it on my page when it was public domain, I should be allowed to keep it there? I sure do. :-) Jeffpw 18:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

The image was never public domain; it was just mislabelled. --Robth^Talk 18:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Dear Robth:

Please restore the Sindbad Hotel Complex and Conference Center article that was deleted. It was originally cited for possible violation of copyright, but we are the copyright holders and give permission to share this content. If you feel there are other issues, please mention them that we might discuss them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arcaddmarketing (talk • contribs) 14:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC).Reply

The original version of the article was written in a promotional, not encyclopedic, tone. The new version is better. Could you please arrange to have the architect email permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org to confirm that he has released Image:CS002.jpg under the licenses detailed on the image page? Thank you, --Robth^Talk 18:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Robth. In this edit, you declined a claim of imagevio for Image:Federicocrescentini.jpg, that is, according to it's source, copyrighted to stock photo agency Getty Images. I understand and agree that it's a requirement from our policy that we only use unfree images for dead (or otherwise inaccessible) people, but keep in mind that this is a necessary but not sufficient requirement. The death of the image's subject indeed increases the commercial value of Getty's image.

Don't you agree this image should be deleted as a (dangerous) copyvio?

Best regards, --Abu Badali 17:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Good catch; I don't know what I was thinking there--I must have gotten scrambled up looking at the history of the discussion somehow. Thanks for correcting me. --Robth^Talk 18:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think dead people should be automatically entitled to having the best pictures of them available out there, no matter what the "copyright-schmopyright"-rules say. If it's a picture of a dead person, they deserve only the best, nobody can argue with that. (Even Hitler has a good picture on his site).

I don't want my talk page to be overwhelmed with tons of the same kind of messages telling me an image is not properly licensed or something like that, but in this case a note on my talk page would have been nice. I was coming here to ask you why you deleted this image as recently it was said this image did qualify for fair use and suddenly it was gone. So what I understand from reading here is that this image is deleted because it is a picture created by Getty Images and these pictures can not be used, not even when the person in question has died? SportsAddicted | discuss 22:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Our use of the image would detract from its commercial value to the copyright holder. It is not legal for use to use the image. I can think of no case in which our use of an image from Getty (which exists entirely to make money selling images) would qualify as fair use. --Robth^Talk 22:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm not blaming you, I just wanted to know the reason behind it. If this is the way it is, we can't do much about it, but it's good to know where the borders are for future cases like this. SportsAddicted | discuss 23:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 11!

Delivered by grafikbot 11:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I checked the deletion log and it appears you deleted the Robert J. Swieringa page. Can you restore this page? What were the copyright problems?H.al-shawaf 21:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Large portions of the article were copied from Swieringa's oficial biography at Cornell. The article could be recreated in a different form, but can not be restored in its original copyright-infringing form. --Robth^Talk 23:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

In visiting our Wikipedia entry, I noticed that you had deleted the entry for Andover Newton Theological School on December 12, 2006.

The staff and faculty of the school had just completed an extensive edit of that entry in November 2006. In it, we used text that we commonly use in all our publications and on our Web site, www.ants.edu.

Your reason for deleting the entry was that it used text from our Web site. Please consider undeleting that article. We give permission for the use of any descriptive text from our official web site at www.ants.edu.

[Personal info commented out]

Unfortunately, the tone of that content was suited for the school's website, not a neutral encyclopedia article. An article about the school would be most welcome, but it must comply with our policy of neutrality, which makes that particular inappropriate for use. --Robth^Talk 17:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

The law article is in FAC. As you can see in its FAC subpage, I was very critical towards the article from the first moment, and, therefore, a strong "opposer". Nevertheless, I saw that User:Wikidea has dedicated much time and effort in this article, and has improved it a lot. I thought the article is now featurable, and, hence, I decided to help. A few moments ago I finished my rewriting of the lead; I have added a new section ("etymology and definitions") and citations, I took care of formatting and layout things etc. I know the article is maybe not there yet, but I believe it deserves a shot. That is why, I decided to ask you, if and when you have time, to have a look at it, check the lead and the structure (both have received much criticism - therefore, I decided to rewrite the lead), maybe check the prose, and, if you want, voice yourself in FAC about how the article can get better. I think clear minds are needed now - I'm already much involved there, although I started as a mere FAC reviewer! Regards! And have a nice weekend!--Yannismarou 15:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your support in my request for adminship which closed successfully last night. <insert spam> I would also like to encourage you to vote often (just in case you don't) on other candidates since we need more admins. <insert spam> Happy editing, Garion96 (talk) 00:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25!

Delivered by grafikbot 14:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey Robth! I think that this image is quite inappropriate, and I know that you have profound understanding about images, their practicality, copyright issues related to them, etc. from the previous discussion that I had with you. Could you voice your opinion in the discussion? If you think it's appropriate, go ahead. But please read what I wrote because I think they sound quite convincing. (Wikimachine 23:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC))Reply

I'm not going to get involved in that. That said, Wikipedia is not censored is a widely supported policy here, so I doubt you will get anywhere in that discussion. --Robth^Talk 16:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I notice you're doing copyvio image deletions. Can you look at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2007 February 5/Images, regarding the Baphomet image? I just noticed that the uploader answered the copyvio question but the answer is incorrect (I've replied now), and I'm worried that since this is over a week old in the logs, it's going to be overlooked now. — coelacan talk — 21:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that you recently removed my image Marinablue.jpg from the "Marinablue" page. Several images which I have uploaded have been tagged for copyright violation, and I can understand these being deleted. However, this particular image was not tagged and was not a copyright violation. I took the photo myself and it was never considered a copyright violation. Just because some of my other images were copyright violations does not mean that this one is. (User:Jackmiami 01:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC))Reply

Given that you falsely claimed to be the author of all of those images, and that every one I or anyone else checked proved to be copied, I don't know how I can take your word for this. --Robth^Talk 06:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Robth, I just like to thank you for all your work helping me by copy editting the Roman-Spartan War. Once again thanks. Kyriakos 08:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Seeing that you are an active member of the WikiBiography Project, I was wondering if you would help lend a hand in helping us clear out the amount of [unassessed articles] tagged with {{WPBiography}}. Many of them are of stub and start class, but a few are of B or A caliber. Getting a simple assessment rating can help us start moving many of these biographies to a higher quality article. Thank you! --Ozgod 21:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I saw you on WP:CP, I hope you can help me with something. This article was listed on WP:CP here. No internet link, but it does seem likely that it was a copyvio. However the article has changed so much that there is not much or nothing left of the copyvio. It is however based on it and it's in the history. I would think it should be deleted and perhaps changed to a super stub, but I'd thought I'd ask just to be sure. Garion96 (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, you can go ahead and delete the old revisions. The new one is a fresh article, not a derivative of the old copyvio stuff (which is why we can keep it), and that means that the GFDL requirement to preserve the contribution history of a work doesn't force us to keep the old ones, since they aren't prior versions of anything we're publishing. --Robth^Talk 13:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I just did that. Thanks, Garion96 (talk) 16:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

The March 2007 issue of the Biography 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. Mocko13 22:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

The February 2007 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 16:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC) Reply

The February 2007 issue of the WikiProject Greece newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link.

Thank you.--Yannismarou 18:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please take a look at Sparta. User Miskin (who recently made changes to the Corinthian War article) insists on calling Sparta a "World Power" or a superpower based on a couple of authors. NN 12:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please do take a look and offer your opinion. Considering your reversion on Corinthian War, I think the article should stick to NPOV connotation. Most sources (including Britannica) refer to fleet as a joint Athenian-Persian one. The battle was officially between Sparta and Athens but Athens had received much of its fleet from Persia, which in turn used the fleet of recently conquered territories such as Cyprus. So the article has to either refer to the fleet in official terms as Athenian-Persian, or be specific every time about its leadership and composition. Labeling it "Persian" is just as imprecise as to label it only "Athenian", and it's being misinterpreted by editors who push POV on other articles. Miskin 14:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I actually (annoyingly enough) can't find the book I was using as my major source for Corinthian War at the moment; it's possible that this should be amended; I need to get to the library and check. That said, Pharnabazus was clearly in overall command; at Xenophon 4.8.1-3 Conon is "advising Pharnabazus", and Pharnabazus "[gives] him forty triremes". Although Conon directly commanded a Greek contingent in the fleet, it was a mercenary force, not an Athenian-funded navy; in fact, Conon himself had been out of Athens for over 10 years at this point, and although he was clearly working in that city's interests he held no office and may not have even been in communication with the government at the time. I'll look to see what some of the standard surveys--Fine, Hornblower, etc.--say about the issue when I have time to get to the library, hopefully this afternoon. --Robth^Talk 16:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

The "Dictionary of Ancient & Medieval Warfare" defines the war as a conflict "between Sparta and the Greek cities that feared Sparta", where Persia's involvement aimed at stopping Spartan expansion into Asia. It also says that "at sea, Conon's successes alarmed Persia into thinking they heralded a revival of the Athenian empire in the Aegean". Despite the Persian commander who naturally escorted the Persian fleet and was "officially" in overall command, it is clear that Persia regarded this battle as a victory for Athens and not for itself. Considering the fact that (a) Persia was involved as an ally of Athens and not as an enemy of Sparta (b) the "Persian" fleet was more Greek than Persian, it is as imprecise to call it 'Persian' as it is to call it Athenian. Therefore Britannica's use of joint Athenian-Persian alliance is the most neutral and precise connotation. If for no good reason because it becomes the source of POV-pushing in several other articles. For example Nev is using this naval battle as an argument that "Sparta never had an influence on Persian politics and Persia finally won the war against Sparta and therefore Sparta was not a great power but just a city which was important its own country [supposedly Greece]" (his words). Miskin 18:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

That definition is accurate in some respects, but (as is typical of these shorter summary sources--Brittanica falls in the same class) fails to reflect some important details. First, Persia at Cnidus was most certainly acting in its own interest; the creation of an anti-Spartan coalition in Greece was in large part Persia's doing, and represented an effort to force Agesilaus to withdraw from Ionia (it succeeded). Peisander's fleet had been attached to Agesilaus' army, and its defeat was a major step towards consolidating Ionia in Persian hands. It's hard to say whether Persia or Athens benefitted more from the battle--their interests were fairly closely aligned at the time--but it is clear that Persia was building the ships and paying the bills, and that Athens itself made no actual contribution to the fleet, which was composed of the King's Phoenician subjects and Greek mercenaries. I haven't looked at this Sparta situation yet, but we need to consider each case on its own merits. --Robth^Talk 18:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I would think that with "Persia was building the ships and paying the bills" the it is not right to say "the "Persian" fleet was more Greek than Persian". A vast empire like Persia is going to use its local resources to fight local wars, which in this case included Greek resources. NN 19:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

And this is the kind of POV I'm dealing with. The fact remains that Nayan has been edit-warring over referenced content which he's been replacing with his personal opinion. I'm not willing to adjust consensus content to individual editors' nationalist insecurities. With the film 300 on the horizon, this type of nationalism POV-pushing and vandalism on Greco-Persian articles is getting commoner by the day. Miskin 19:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've been insisting on this because I've been editing this article for a long time and I can't let an editor who has never shown any interest to pass his POV out of the blue. The article is now left on Nayan's original research version, as I don't want to continue his rv-war and disruptive editing. I'm offerring to decide this per WP:CITE, I can't think of anything more neutral. Miskin 20:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I got to the library yesterday afternoon, and although I haven't been able to resolve everything, here's what I have learned. First, all three major survey texts I examined (Bury's History of Greece, Fine's The Ancient Greeks, and Hornblower's The Greek World...) agree that the fleet in question was a Persian fleet. The story appears to be as follows (some of this comes from the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia, of which I have not yet been able to get my hands on a translation): Conon was off the scene from 405 (after Aegospotami) until 397 BC; he was with Evagoras in Cyprus during this time. In 397 he was appointed commander of a massive Persian fleet (planned to include 100 ships from Cyprus alone) under construction in Phoenicia and Cyprus); this fleet was commissioned directly by Artaxerxes. In 396, Conon took the 40 ships already constructed and sailed to Rhodes, where when Conon brought about the revolt of that island, seized a Spartan grain fleet on its was from Egypt, and met up with an additional 170 ships sent to him from Phoenicia. This was the fleet with which the battle of Cnidus was fought.

So the question is, where is Athens in all of this? Here the Hell. Ox. comes in. Apparently in 397 BC the Athenians received news of Conon's appointment and debated in the assembly what to do about it; some favored openly supporting hi, but a more moderate position carried the day; a single ship, commanded by one Demaneitos, was officialy decommissioned and then sailed out to Conon, carrying arms. The Athenians grew bolder in 396 after Rhodes fell, but that aggression seems to have been directed landwards into the alliance with Boeotia; I can find no evidence (save perhaps the elusive mention of a "Greek contingent" in Xenophon) that the Athenians were sending ships; given the state of economic crisis the city was in at the time, this is hardly surprising. That said, I don't have the whole picture here yet; hopefully by tommorrow I will have had a look at the Hell. Ox. and have a bit better understanding of how this all fits together. --Robth^Talk 17:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for researching this. NN 18:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Could you please confirm that the OTRS permissions for the following three images (which link to the same OTRS permission), are valid and in order, and confirm the images are released to the public domain? I am looking in to an issue raised about an editor who appears to be wilfully and deliberately placing fraudulent information on images he uploads. I am an administrator but do not have access to check OTRS permissions. --Yamla 18:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Image:Rajini in spain.jpg
• Image:252157716 887607f66c.jpg
• Image:Vijaytamil.jpg

All three claims were nonsense, and I have deleted all three. I've never seen anyone faking OTRS permissions before; that's a little worrisome, but at least it's easy enough to catch. --Robth^Talk 20:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I appreciate your time. --Yamla 20:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

On 9 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mytilenean revolt , which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thank you for your contribution! — ERcheck (talk) 02:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Congratulations on your DYK. I reverted your article back to where it was prior to it being vandalized. Chris 02:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for cleaning up this Copyvio mess! I wouldn't have believed that there was some clean revision to fall back to; good work! Huon 21:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply