User talk:MichaelMaggs
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
I will respond here to any messages left for me on this page. If you would like me to respond on your own talk page, as well, just let me know. |
[edit] Hi MichaelMaggs
Please could you stop removing the Chav Issues section from the Yeovil entry. It was my girlfriend's first contribution to Wikipedia and as a true Yeovilite she knows what she is talking about. Thanks in advance
aka_joey
[edit] Thanks
Thanks for the message.
It looks like a pretty interesting website.
Cya.
--Windozer64
[edit] Dear Sir or Madam
Please don't delete my facts. They are not vandalism. Please don't let the wikistapo keep me down.
regards, 4~'s.
[edit] Bring me the horizon
I didn't vandalise the bring me the horizon page. It is actual fact. It used to say on their hxcmp3 page. Beer not Bombs
[edit] Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can
 |
The article Amanita muscaria, to which you have helped contribute, has been flagged as requiring cleanup. If possible, we would appreciate your assistance in cleaning up this article to bring it up to Wikipedia's quality standards. If you are unsure what the nature of the problem is, please discuss this on the article's talk page. |
[edit] mediation
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Zen, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.
[edit] Apologies
Wow - I had no idea that my 12 year old son took it upon himself to edit the Jeanette Rankin article. (He has a research paper on her due this Friday.) I'll speak to him and hope that will be sufficient to prevent any further vandalism of Wikipedia on his part. It took me 10 minutes to figure out how to leave this message on your page. I guess I should have asked my son..... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.62.157.131 (talk) 08:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Freedom skies
Hello,
I've requested an arbitration regarding the conduct of Freedom skies.
Can I trouble you to write a brief statement at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Freedom skies?
A brief account of Freedom skies' conduct, particularly at Talk:Bodhidharma/Archive 2, will suffice.
Thanks.
JFD 04:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freedom skies
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freedom skies. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freedom skies/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freedom skies/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 02:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Link-boy (copied from here)
I've added the photograph you asked for. Hope that helps. --MichaelMaggs 20:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- WOW! I cannot believe that you found a link extinguishers to photograph. That really helps the article. Thank you. -- Jreferee 20:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Gamecomwithbox.JPG
Hi Michael. I just wanted to make sure I understood your comments regarding this image. I saw your initial comment and updated the image to include copyright information (I took the picture and have intended to release the copyright to GNU). I saw your comment "I've deleted this as a copyright violation", which must mean you have deleted it from the list of images in copyright violation, and not that you have deleted the image because of a copyright violation. Please let me know if the image requires more info from me, and thanks for your tireless improving Wikipedia! -Armaced 18:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Armaced. I've actually deleted the version of that image that was on Commons, as it is I'm afraid a copyright violation of the printed design on the box. Even though you took the picture, and may be prepared to license your image, copyright in the cover design and printed layout still remains with the copyright owner - probably the company, and it's that that you've infringed. As the image is also on Wikipedia, though, you can still see it here. Admins here may possibly allow the picture to stay if it can be argued that fair use applies, but that's not allowed on Commons. (I'm an Admin on Commons, not Wikipedia). --MichaelMaggs 20:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification, Michael. I submit to your authority regarding wiki Commons copyright practices. I am not entirely sure how the image got there in the first place, as I only intended to upload it to Wikipeadia. I do find it surprising that this would be considered a copyright violation under any terms, however, and since it is in my nature to probe shades of grey, I am going to ask a few questions. Feel free to ignore them if you wish, I know you must be busy, but I have to ask. Since this was a picture that contained a box, and not an attempt to directly reproduce the box or it's cover image, is it a copyright violation to have any copyrighted item in a picture? What about a picture of my son opening a box of Lego's on Christmas, with the box mostly unwrapped? My Dad standing in front of his 1998 Ford truck? My wife reading a new novel, with the cover clearly visible (..or even part of the text of a page)? My daughter eating Cheerios with the box in the picture? Brands surround us, and it seems unfair that copyright law would extend any where near any of these conditions.
- Please understand I am not challenging your actions. I understand that your organization prefers to err on the side of caution. Thank you for your time. -Armaced 23:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Armaced. Copyright is pretty confusing, I agree. If you take a photo of a 2D copyright work, like a printed design on a box, without consent of the copyright owner (usually the company) that's normally a copyright infringement. There are some exceptions, though of which Fair use is one. It's also OK if the design is insignificant within the overall photo, as with the example you gave of your son opening a box of lego. It's a matter of degree: a closeup photo of the design printed on the lego box is not allowed; a photo in which the design is incidental is OK.
- The rules are different when considering a photo of a 3D object. If the object is of some 'work of art' like a sculpture or a toy model of Superman, in which copyright can exist in its own right, taking a photo in which that object is prominent is infringement. Such a photo of a copyright 3D object is sometimes called a "derivative work". For more details, see the very good article at Commons:commons:Derivative works. Once again, though, if the object is insignificant you should be ok. It's also quite ok to take photos of 3D objects in which copyright has already expired (eg an old piece of sculpure), or which are not capable of attracting copyright as a 3D work (eg a gun, the shape of computer, a sofa, a truck). Having said all that, the detailed rules may differ somewhat country by country.
- I expect your photo on Wikipedia was picked up by someone who thought it was good and who copied it across to Commons. Generally, it's better to upload to Commons when you can, as that allows images to be used on other Wikis, not just the English Wikipedia. But on Commons you can't rely on the Fair use copyright exemption, so there will be a few images which are OK here but which are not allowed on Commons. Do feel free to post any queries you have on copyright issues to the Commons Helpdesk where there are lots of nice people who can help :) --MichaelMaggs 15:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)-
-
- Thanks for taking the time to explain this to me, Michael. -Armaced 23:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
