Talk:Swastika origin theories

message: I don't know...it seems like the article is kind of crowded with pictures...is there any way we can trim it down without stripping out too much information?  Could we provide an exernal link for people interested in more pics, something like that?  On a small screen, this article must be difficult to read. NickelShoe 21:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it will be difficult to convey information about motifs without a fairly liberal use of images. It actually seems easier to read if a browser is narrowed to the width of the top image, which is ~500 pixels. Bkobres 19:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pics

message: It looks like this could use some of the references put inline, find some stuff for the fact tags, and maybe some copyedit work as well.  Maybe make this a bit more general of an article?  the swastika motif in nature?  or tightly focused on comets?  Just a few thoughts.  --Rocksanddirt 17:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References and Clean up 

message: A huge portion of this article infringed on http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/bronze.html so I deleted the infringing portions.  I'm going to replace some of the images as stuff that old is out of copyright. ←BenB4 19:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comets and the Bronze Age Collapse is my article and is on my website.  I started this wiki article and, as I think is stated above, all of the images are either in the public domain, created by me, or redrawn by me. Why don't you read the notes or view the history before such massive editing? Bkobres 20:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry, but I can see no notes or edit comments in the history which indicate any release of license.  Your page implies that the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies holds the copyright.  Has the text in question been released under a GFDL-compatible license? ←BenB4 20:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I retained control of copyright and there are additional illustrations and text in this version.  The information was always meant to encourage research and no payment was received from SIS. The entire article has been on my website since 1994 so there is no need for concern. Bkobres 20:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want to be a pain in the ass, but the SIS web site has a copyright notice and sells reprints instead of hosting them for free.  Is there a notation in the Workshop volume saying that the works are released?  It's not uncommon for there to be no payment for scholarly publications. ←BenB4 20:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: If you never explicitly released the rights to SIS in a contract or by accepting their terms, you could just put a note on your site that the work is released to the public domain, under the GFDL, or under a Creative Commons license such as CC-BY-SA (not an NC variant, though.) ←BenB4 20:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The whole article is not used for this Wikipedia entry and I think that I varied some of the text anyway. Since I am the original author and the one who put it on Wikipedia with the knowledge that it would be free for anyone to use the information--Where is the legal risk to Wikipedia? Bkobres 21:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If SIS has a claim to the copyright, they could sue Wikipedia for providing a text for free that they sell.  You could have easily assigned the rights to them by submitting the text under terms and conditions that said you do, even without signing anything, as long as you were sent a copy before you sent your manuscript.  If you think you didn't, you can place a release into the public domain or under GFDL or CC-BY-* on your site, then the risk and potential liability would transfer to you. ←BenB4 21:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the article has been available for free on my website since 1994 and by contributing the text that I did means that I agreed to license that contribution under the GFDL, I think that any legal liability is already mine. Bkobres 22:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure, but I know for sure nobody would have a problem if you could annotate your page. ←BenB4 23:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll try to get that done soon--I don't use remote server access so it may be Monday before I get back to the library.  Current copyright law is overly influenced by corporate profit seeking and generally stifling to the exchange of information. I'm effectively limited to putting material online that was published prior to 1923, although many of these publications have been forgotten and are physically deteriorating due to the acid paper they were printed on. It's a shame.  Bkobres 00:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As you are clearly the author, I will put the article back the way I found it, but please do remember to annotate that page with a release. ←BenB4 00:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio deleted 

message: For the symbols that represent owl tracks, what exactly does that have to do with comets? ←BenB4 19:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: this article talks about ancient representations of comets and about mythological birds. What they have to do with one another, or with the swastika, is entirely unclear, and relies purely on Kobres' 1992 book. This is why the article is tagged as WP:OR. As long as no academic review of the book is presented, this probably shouldn't even be on Wikipedia. dab (𒁳) 07:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: even worse, the article doesn't summarize a book, but a five page article published in an obscure catastrophism journal. Clearly fails . dab (𒁳) 07:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment