User talk:Mattbr/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to Mattbr's Talk Page Archive 2! February 2007 – This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on my current talk page.

Archives: March 2006 – January 2007 • February 2007 –

This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original talk page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mattbr/Archive_2.

Contents 1 Orphaned fair use image (Image:Mattpinsent.jpg) 2 Orphaned fair use image (Image:Steveredgrave.jpg) 3 Orphaned fair use image (Image:Jamescracknell.jpg) 4 WikiProject invitation 5 Talk page messages 6 Uploading images 7 AWB Bug: Title bolding - Fixed 8 Please give rationale for why you dispute fair use 9 Bad images 10 Spam 11 Czechoslovak x Czechoslovakian 12 Why? 13 Delete? Explain 14 About posting pictures of footballers 15 Vandalism by German Revanchists 16 German Revanchists

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Mattpinsent.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Mattpinsent.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 20:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Steveredgrave.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Steveredgrave.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 20:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Jamescracknell.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Jamescracknell.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 20:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject invitation

Hello, Mattbr/Archive 2 and thank you for your contributions on articles related to The Apprentice UK. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject The Apprentice UK, a WikiProject aiming to improve coverage of The Apprentice UK and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out and participate, please come over and visit us here for more information. Thanks! Dalejenkins 21:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page messages

Hi Matt I am trying to learn around wiki, I just posted an image that you deleted as I was warned and expected.

Sorry for adding work, I just had to try - I am really missing images on wiki - yet I was surprised by how sophisticated the reaction and the actual reply was (Someone actually check the upload. :-)) How does that work? hu are you?

One last question - did you write the message yourself or how much have you been assissted by automation? How many mails like that do you do per day? :)

Zoro —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zorkovsky (talk • contribs) 18:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

Hello Zorkovsky, due to the licence the site uses, the GNU Free Documentation License, all contributions to the site must be freely copyable (under the licence) for others to use (this is why you see Wikipedia content on other sites). This means that copyrighted material can only be used under fair use laws and must meet the fair use criteria, with the key criterion being that no free alternative could be found. In the case of images of living people, copyrighted pictures cannot be used as a free image could be taken by anyone (as was the case for your image).

As for my 'magical powers', people are constantly uploading images and people often do not include enough information, if any, or make false claims on the source or the copyright status of the image. To avoid Wikipedia being sued for breach of copyright, uploads are checked by other users of the site to ensure they contain the right information so they can be used, and the software generates a special page with a gallery of new images uploaded by users to make this checking easier. There is a similar page for checking edits to pages, called recent changes.

Regarding the messages, the welcome message is a standard message (in the form of a template) used to welcome new users (there is one at the top of my talk page from when I joined) to help point new users in the right direction and provide a point of contact. The copyright notice I wrote myself, but there are also templates available for other situations (such as the one used by Jkelly). I personally don't post that many messages, but other users post lots!

Finally, I am just a regular Wikipedian just like you. Let me know if you have any more questions, and happy editing, mattbr³⁰ 19:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

PS. When leaving a message on a talk page, type ~~~~ which produces your signature and a time stamp, so other users know who has posted a message and when. For me this leaves: mattbr³⁰ 19:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC) :).

[edit] Uploading images

Hello Boston24, when you upload an image, please ensure you include the source of the image and that you select a licence from the dropdown box. This is to ensure that the copyright status of the image can be determined. Please ask if you have any questions. Thanks, mattbr³⁰ 17:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm so confused by your note left for me on my talk page re the Randy Quaid images. I uploaded another Randy Quaid photo and fixed errors that I made so I uploaded the new ones in what I thought was the same manner - can you tell me in simple terms what on earth I'm doing wrong?

thanks! Boston24 18:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Boston, this message is quite long, but please bear with me!

Regarding the message directly above, when you go to the upload page, there is a 'Summary' box and a 'Licensing' box.

In the summary box, make sure you include where the image has come from. For example, if you have found the image on a website, include a link to it, or if you have taken the photo yourself, say so. This is so other editors know where the image has come from and the copyright status of the image can be determined. In the images you uploaded, you said that they came from a press kit, so you would want to include a information about what the press kit was for, who wrote it, where you got it from, and a link to it if one exists.

The licensing box allows you to select a suitable licence for your image, which tells other editors the copyright status. This is important as the licence dictates how an image can be used by Wikipedia and by other sites. For example, a company logo is copyrighted, which means that the company holds the copyright. Wikipedia can use copyrighted images under fair use laws, but their use MUST meet the fair use criteria. For the images you uploaded, you would claim fair use, so you would need to select 'Fair use image of a living person'. This brings me on to the first message I left.

Fair use criterion number 1 says: 'No free equivalent [image] is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information'. In the case of a living person, anybody could take a picture of them and release the image under a free licence. This means that Wikipedia cannot claim fair use for the image and it must be deleted, which is the case for the images you uploaded. The first message I left is a notification of that. Unfortunately, image copyright is a bit of a minefield and can be confusing, and it takes time to understand all the different bits, but Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, as this prevents themselves getting sued for breach of copyright, so it can't be ignored.

The upload page summarises what I mentioned about the boxes so as long as you read the information on there, you should include all you need, but you can read Wikipedia:Uploading images which talks about it more. For copyright, there is more information at Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ.

I hope that's a bit clearer, but let me know if you have any more questions. Happy editing, mattbr³⁰ 19:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

So what I really need to do it get the photographer to sign off on the usage of the photo re the copyright issue? The other notations I can easily fix Boston24 20:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you could ask the copyright owner to release the picture into the public domain or under a free licence that Wikipedia can use. Note that permission for use on Wikipedia only is not sufficient. There is more on this at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission, including examples you can use for sending emails and the email to which you must forward any permissions you receive, otherwise the image will be deleted. Good luck, mattbr³⁰ 20:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AWB Bug: Title bolding - Fixed

Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs/Archive#Title_bolding has been fixed in SVN Rev 607

Reedy Boy 13:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! mattbr³⁰ 13:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please give rationale for why you dispute fair use

On the Image:Rmacleanabaroa.jpg you disputed the fair use arguement by applying a template but please note that the tag asks you to discuss it on the talk page, which you have yet to do. Note this line on the template you added (emphasis added) "Tagger: If this image has, at the time of tagging, a rationale explaining why it is irreplaceable, please do not forget to explain on the talk page why you think that rationale is not valid. Tags applied in contravention of this requirement may be removed; if a rationale is added after the tagging, the normal process for disputing a tag should be followed."

Neither the World Bank nor the nation of Bolivia has released a photo of Maclean into the public domain. In fact the nation of Bolivia never releases photos into the public domain, so where do you suggest that free images can be found to replace this World Bank publicity photo?

--Wowaconia 19:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the notice on the tag, it states, with my emphasis:

Tagger: If this image has, at the time of tagging, a rationale explaining why it is irreplaceable, please do not forget to explain on the talk page why you think that rationale is not valid. Tags applied in contravention of this requirement may be removed; if a rationale is added after the tagging, the normal process for disputing a tag should be followed.

The image does not contain a this rationale, that's why I have not put anything on the talk page.

If I could also quote the first fair use criterion, again with my emphasis:

No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information. If unfree material can be transformed into free material, it should be done instead of using a "fair use" defense. For example, the information in a newspaper article can easily be used as the basis of an original article and then cited as a reference. Maps and diagrams can often be redrawn from original sources, though simply "tracing" copyrighted material does not make it free. Neither photographs nor sound clips, however, can usually be "transformed" in this way. However, if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken.

For an image of a living person, this means that anyone could take a photograph of this person and release it under a free licence, therefore any copyrighted image is replaceable and fails the fair use criteria. Just because a free image doesn't already exist, one could still be created. One reason that an image of a living person would be irreplaceable would be that the event depicted in the picture could not or will not be recreated, for example a marriage or coronation ceremony. Images of dead people are permitted because you couldn't go out an take a picture of them. This image is therefore replaceable, unless you can provide a valid rationale for it being irreplaceable. Just because the government does not release images into the public domain, this does not mean images are irreplaceable. The UK government does not (see crown copyright), but there are still 'free' images of HM Queen Elizabeth II and Tony Blair.

If Wikipedia doesn't meet the fair use criteria, it could be sued for breach of copyright for allowing the image to be used. A claim that the use of the image would "not negatively affect the finances of the World Bank" is not valid, as it is likely that the photographer owns the copyright for the image and the World Bank use it with permission, so it is the photographers finances you are 'negatively affecting'. If this claim was valid, it would completely undermine the copyright laws.

I hope that answers your questions, let me know if you have any more. Thanks, mattbr³⁰ 20:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bad images

Don't worry, I've put a reason on the talk pages why they should stay. They all feature obscure, retired players and the pictures are very hard to find. I had to look for minutes for each of them. Soxrock 20:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget to use {{Replaceable fair use disputed|Your reason why a free replacement is not available}} so that the reviewing admin knows that you dispute the tagging. Thanks, mattbr³⁰ 22:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spam

apologies for left link on bbc page - this was mere accidental —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.241.167.93 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

Please be more careful next time. Thanks, mattbr³⁰ 23:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Czechoslovak x Czechoslovakian

Yes, you are right that the categories should be consistent. Thanks for letting me know about the overall renaming nomination. Jan.Kamenicek 20:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

What seems to be the problem. I need featured content protected. Is it possible?

[edit] Why?

Viaboston13 22:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)I need featured content protected. Is that possible?Viaboston13 22:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Pages can only be protected by administrators, and the page must meet the criteria in the Protection policy before this happens. Bettinna does not appear to meet any of the criteria so it is unlikely any request for page protection would be granted. The act of protection is not done by placing one of the protection notices on the page, so including these will not protect the article.

Regarding the article, the page was previously deleted as the result of an Wikipedia:Articles for deletion discussion (see here), and that is why I have tagged the page for deletion. Please do not delete the template, but add {{hangon}} to the page and follow the instructions if you wish to contest it. Thanks, mattbr³⁰ 22:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Mattbr30, there seem to be a mistake. Ignore previous featured page. Artist is an indie Artist. This article and content is written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias.

[edit] Delete? Explain

Please explain why content needs to be deleted. How do I keep content from being deleted? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Viaboston13 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

Please read the first message I posted on this topic. Bettinna was previously deleted as the result of an Wikipedia:Articles for deletion discussion at this page, and that is why I have tagged the page for deletion under speedy deletion criterion G4 - Recreation of deleted material. To ask that the page not be deleted you need to follow the instructions on the templates, which tells you to place {{hangon}} on the page and then explain why you don't want it deleted on the talk page.

Please also note that I do not believe the article meets the notability guidelines, particularly for music. Also, the article does not provide reliable sources to make the information verifiable. The page may also be considered for deletion because they lack these. mattbr³⁰ 23:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About posting pictures of footballers

Is it OK if I post pictures of football players from the official sites of their football clubs? If not, what should I do to make it legal? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shingkei (talk • contribs) 07:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

As the images you have posted are copyrighted, their use on Wikipedia is under fair use. For any image used under fair use, it must meet the fair use criteria. As the pictures are of living people, anybody can go out and take a picture of the person in question and release it under a free licence that Wikipedia can use. This means that the image fails the first fair use criterion because the image could be replaced with a free image, even if one doesn't exist yet. If you believe that no free alternative could be taken, you can place {{Replaceable fair use disputed | Your reason why a free replacement is not available}} on the image page without removing the original tag and the deciding administrator will take this into consideration. Please ask if you have any other questions, mattbr³⁰ 09:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism by German Revanchists

No. 1 This is not vandalism: the Swiss city of Basle was never an German Imperial city. You have to get your facts right. As explained Prague, Rotterdam, Brussels etc. would have also been also Imperial cities at one time or another. But this is not true, for it does not reflect today's political landscape and it would offend Germany's neighbours. Given for instance Luxembourg, which is an independent state between France and Germany, and it was much larger than it is today. But thence it woud have been a part of the German empire. Furthermore the Reichskreise, or circles are nothing but a fiction. It was a decree by the Austrian Holy Roman Emporer Maximillian to rid the powerful regional rulers off their territories. But they did NOT accept this and converted to Protestantism and fought Maximillian and his grandson. We don't want to see Wikipedia becoming a pseudo historical encyclopaedia, where some German revanchists can dictate their point of view to the readers. Everything would be fine when it would involve European history, but there is really no place for it when it comes to the entries for contempory Germany. Does Munich have such funny entries? You see also Hamburg was once Danish and Bremen was once Swedish or a part of Hanover state. I shall urge you to strip wikipedia off Reichskreise. The Reichskreise were rediscovered by the Nazis who had in mind to convert the Gaus into Reichskreise. This is also a warning NOT to FABRICATE historical facts.

Please accept those contributions by some German users are a part of the Airbus/EADS dispute, which has brought again up German-French tensions, which should not feed into wikipedia! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.157.239.230 (talk) 12:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia, as you did to Basel. It may be considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. merleauponty³⁰ 12:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalise Wikipedia, as you did to Goslar, you will be blocked. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. merleauponty³⁰ 12:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalise Wikipedia, as you did to Hamburg, you will be blocked from editing. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. merleauponty³⁰ 12:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalise Wikipedia, as you did to Hamburg, you will be blocked from editing. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been

Note: The above warnings were posted by 193.157.239.230 (talk) and are identical to the ones posted on their talk page by me, except the username has been changed. mattbr³⁰ 14:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

If you believe content is incorrect on Wikipedia, please provide references from reliable sources to back up your edits. Your edits are contradictory to other content on the site.

Also, do not impersonate another user as you did with the warnings on my talk page. Continuation of this will result in further blocks. mattbr³⁰ 14:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] German Revanchists

(1) How come that you know that i'd impersonate another user? (2) Please remove these entries on German (holy Roman) Imperial Cities and Circles. I think the content of there entries is inflammatory, to say the least! (3) I do not have to prove that they are wrong--these guys have to prove that they are right on this. (4) This is revanchism and it is a deep insult to the neighbouring nations. (5) Historical links have nothing to do in current entries of cities, or do we wish to see another annexation of neighbouring countries, be it only virtual.

Please remove these links, immediately.

Authorative for me is the work of

Winfried Dotzauer, Die deutschen Reichskreise (1386-1806). Geschichte und Aktenedition, Stuttgart 1998.

Joachim Whaley's forthcoming book The History of the Holy Roman Empire 1495-1806 http://www.mml.cam.ac.uk/german/staff/jw10005/

Roger Wines' The Imperial Circles, Princely Diplomacy and Imperial Reform 1681-1714. (1967). I cite here from this work, because there is no need for translation. But the above works reflect the same position.

" In the later decades of the century, wars against Louis XIV and Turks stimulated imperial patriotism and fears for self-preservation among princes. At the same time, serious divisions - between Catholics and Protestants, opposition of the princes to Hanover's new elctoral rank, inte intrigues of pro-French (County of Berg) and pro-Austrian (Swabia,Bavaria) prevented effective action by the emprie as a whole. While larger states (Prussia and Hanover) raised their own armies to become armed estates, the small princelings of the south and west utilized the circle constitution for protection.

Of the ten original imperial circles only a few still functioned effectively by 1648 (the end of the 30 year war). The circles Austria and Burgundy, composed solely of Hapsburg lands, nvever developed formal constitutions. Other circles that had been active in the sixteenth century COLLAPSED with the growth of powerful absolute states such as Brandenburg-Prussia and Saxony. Thus, the lower Saxon circle held its last assembly in 1683 (Right this particular Reichskreis had been active until 1683! and thereafter resolved! It had been in force from 1495 until 1683 a whopping 158 years (during the thirties year war the circles were inactive) of the nearly 1000 year lasting Holy Roman empire. Get your facts right: the Reichskreise were a non-starter in the first place and because of their meaninglessness have nothing to do in the entries for modern German cities!). while the Bavarian circle met only intermittantly in the seventeenth and eigthteens centuries., chielfy to vote wartime levies for the imperial army. The rheinbund of 1658 temporarily weakend the organization of the circle in Franconia and helped cause a suspension of meetings of the Westphailian circle, 1671-97, and of electorial Rhine, 1667-97 (this is where Berg belonged to as flsel claimed by the person who has added this link in Wiki). Divisions between Catholic and Protestant princes crippled the upper Rhenish circle form 1664 to 1667. ..."

So what had the Reichscirlces for a significance if they met less regularly than the United Nations?

Lastly, the Nazis had the Reich divided into Gaue, but there was the endeaviour after the "Final Victory" to expand the boundaries of the German empire to suit those prior to 1648 (hence including even Verdun into the German territory).

Check out: Allan A. Lund: Germanenideologie im Nationalsozialsmus: Zur Rezeption der Germania des Tacitus im "Dritten Reich." Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag C. Winter, 1995. about this!

Check out the Kreisabschiede —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.157.239.230 (talk) 23:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

Firstly, those (copied) warnings were not posted by the user in question (who has never edited my talk page), and were posted by this address [1] with the username also changed by this address [2]. If you are that user, you should log in and post a message saying so.

The source for the information on the articles appears to have come from the German Wikisource entry Hernach volgend die zehen Krayß. Rather than just continually removing information from articles with no edit summary and information on the site contradicting your removals, you should edit the relevant articles on the subject (such as Lower Saxon Circle) providing reliable sources to back up your edits. Anybody wishing to express a different viewpoint should also provide references. I don't know much about the topic in question and don't have an opinion on what is correct. The reason I reverted your edits was because you provided no rationale for removing content, its removal was contradictory to the content removed, and you continued to do so after being warned not to (and to contact me if you felt the edit should not have been reverted), which I consider vandalism. If you had not ignored the warnings I posted here and contacted me after the first warning, it is unlikely that you would have been blocked. mattbr³⁰ 10:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)