User talk:Robth

Busy, busy, busy with coursework right now. I will be editing as little as my limited self discipline allows for the next several weeks. --Robth^Talk 15:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archives

Archive 1, 12/05-5/06
Archive 2, 5/06-9/06

To keep conversations threaded and readable, please follow the procedure below:

If you post a message here, watchlist this page. I will reply here.
If I have posted a message on your talk page, I will have it watchlisted. Reply there. (If I'm being outrageously slow about responding, or if you just want a quick reply, feel free to ping me here to get my attention.)
Note that I don't follow my own policy when a new user posts on my page; a post on their talk page is much more likely to reach them, so I reply there.

Thanks, --Robth^Talk

Ridicule my work!

In an attempt to harness the labor of good natured folks who happen to click on this talk page, I'm going to put a list of the articles I've most recently created or rewritten here. Are they good? Do they make no sense? Are they so boring you fell asleep while reading the lead? Did I confuse east with west or left with right again? You decide! Feedback, screwup-fixing, or bold improvement is greatly appreciated.

Athenian coup of 411 BC
Zeugitai
Battle of Arginusae: Is the way I did the citations on this clever and useful, or just weird? Does the trial of the generals belong in the same article as the battle?
Areopagite constitution
Battle of Pylos

Pile-On

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

Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC

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

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

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

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

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

WikiProject Military history Newsletter - Issue VII - September 2006

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

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

recreation of deleted image

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

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

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

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

Hellespont

Sorry for the long delay!

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

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

Copyvio not fixed

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

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

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

OhioLINK (replied on his talk page)

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

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

Congratulations on Theramenes receiving featured status

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

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

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

library access

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

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

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

Awesome! There are two I'd suggest:

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

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

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

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

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

Another barnstar

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

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

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

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

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

Erk Russell images

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

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

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

OTRS

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

Dawson

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

Bot help?

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

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

Copyright claims

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

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

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

Ephialtes

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

Harmonium

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

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

Bill Gates' house

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyvio images

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

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

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

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

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

Marking image removal as minor

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

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

Commons image

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

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

Fifa image deletions

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

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

Peruvian airport image deletions

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

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

See Before You Die.net images

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

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

Richard Lindon

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

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

I'll make your solution simple for you.

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Chirala

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

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

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

OTRS

(Copied from my talkpage, ~Kylu)

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

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

re: library access

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

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

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

WP:CP

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

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

Only when you'll have time

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