User talk:MattKingston

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

/archive1

Contents

[edit] Israeli-occupied territories

Your lack of attention to detail is unfortunate and troubling. Please try to do better whenever you opt to involve yourself in a tense situation. El_C 11:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Your input on the lyric situation was greatly appreciated. With this information, we can now check to see if it is acceptable. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 03:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hello Matt; Thanks for GFDLing my Madonna of the Trail photos. I have posted a lot of photos on wikipedia and some of them are returning to haunt me [and others] . I never got the hang of the various copyrights and now mostly just use GFDL - so thanks for helping out. Carptrash 16:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] yo

Hey thanks for pointing out the issue for the maesetg town hall photo - It's not being used as part of the article on Maesteg so it may as well be deleted. --Luccent 16:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC) Erm, I can't remember if I took the photo myself - it would have been taken a few years ago. So I can't be sure about the GFDL. --Luccent 11:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyrights

Usually when I look online for images to use on Wikipedia pages, the images I find don't seem to have any copyright information... I get the feeling alot of images don't even have copyrights in the first place, so, if I can't even find out if an image even has a copyright, let alone what it actually is if it does have one... in that case, should I just not bother uploading an image to Wikipedia at all? And more importantly, what kind of sadist would want to create a universe that's so bloody unfair? Also, do you have any idea what sort of sites I might go to to try to find out about copyright info on images? Teknomage 15:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Drug related pages

Hi there,

I see you've already come up with the same idea that I've been promoting as of late: standardization of the sections of every drug related article. Your proposed layout has some strong points, but I don't think that Wikipedia should attempt to give medical advice. It needs to a presentation of facts, and nothing more.

I don't think there should be a seperate "patient info" section. This entire section is comprised of advice that a doctor, pharmacist, or nurse would give. You can probably see how that wouldn't be a good idea, if not just for legal reasons.

I do agree that the description section should clearly show brand names vs. the generic/chemcial name. I recently rewrote the diazepam article, and I think that it is close to being a prototype for all future drug related articles. Take a look at this article, or my userpage (under the articles in progress section) for my ideas of what constitutes a good drug related article. We should definitely try to come to some sort of consensus as to the standard layout.

Best wishes,

Fuzzform 20:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

There's quite a lot of useful opinion and comment here. Can I suggest that the discussion re: Standardization of drug pages move to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Drugs/General/Main sections of drug page. This is just so that others are aware of this discussion and can join in. You might want to copy/rehash what you've written already on Fuzzform's talk page. --Colin 22:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Map of japanese nuclear power plants.png

I have no idea who owns the copyright. I will ask in the Japanese wikipedia. Please wait. Ben T/C 00:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. The user in ja who first created the image has apparently left wikipedia. I guess this leaves no other choice than to delete the image. Ben T/C 21:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC Irreducible Complexity

Thanks for participating in the RfC for Irreducible complexity. It is important to have "many eyes" in disputes such as this. Unfortunately there's a lot to read (much of it rather technical)... do you have any ideas on how we could increase user participation in the RfC process, or for contraversial issues (such as this?) - JustinWick 22:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually interestingly enough, it's not my RfC, I just started the "topic" on it because no one else had. I do think the RfC is warrented, however, and am intellectually interested to see the final outcome. Maybe I should make it more clear when I set up RfC "topics" that I am "impartial" (not involved in creating the RfC). - JustinWick 18:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Mappa Due Sicilie.PNG

hi Matt, thank you for your message and contacting me. You are right, a source should have been added, this image was uploaded way in the beginning when I started in Wikipedia. I have added now the source, not so sure about the correct public domain tag. If you have any further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. thanks.. Gryffindor 12:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Haider in Carinthia.jpg, Image:K Waldheim.jpg, and Image:Miller&Monroe.jpg

Hi, and thanks for your multiple messages. I've said this at least a hundred times in answer to queries such as yours, and okay, I'm going to say it again:

(1) I uploaded the images you are referring to back in 2002. In those days, Wikipedia tags had not yet been invented, and no one was asked to cite any sources. If there had been any such requirements, I would have fulfilled them to the best of my knowledge.

(2) In the course of the following years, I tried to update the image descriptions by adding the appropriate tags, but as the text within these image tags is continuously being changed the descriptions again and again turned out to be inadequate. For example, an image such as Image:Haider in Carinthia.jpg, a promotional photo (I even said so in the caption on the Jörg Haider page) taken from the FPÖ web site—back then, Haider is no longer a member of the FPÖ—, has been able to pass for a fair use image for more than three years; now suddenly all this is no longer valid. But what on earth could I do about it now?

(3) A photographer from Vienna, Conny de Beauclair, has a web site with thousands of his own images from the last 20 years. He seems to enjoy the wide circulation of his (free) images, and I e-mailed him just to make sure. I uploaded three of his pictures for Wikipedia, two of which—Waris Dirie's and Franz Antel's—have again been removed, the former as a "possible (?!?) copyright violation", the latter without any comment. The third one is Kurt Waldheim's, which, all of a sudden, is contentious, too. Again: What can I do other than stop uploading images altogether?

(4) I very much appreciate the idea of a collaborative effort, but my idea does not include working against each other. This has been happening for years now, especially on the actors' and actresses' pages: User A (me, for example) uploads a "safe" image (an old publicity still—for example of Lauren Bacall—or a screenshot), and then User B (in many cases a newbie) comes along, deletes the image and replaces it with a "better" picture, which is copyrighted and removed again within days. In the meantime, the original picture is gone of course and can no longer be retrieved.

(5) The past has shown that I never seem to be able to choose the "right" tag for an image I uploaded, so I'm not going to try again. If you can't find a tag yourself and you think it's necessary or if it makes you happy, please delete all those images.

All the best, <KF> 08:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the trouble you've gone to replying to my comment and tagging those images. When I was talking about people working against each other I was of course not referring to you and me. I do understand that those legal problems have to be dealt with; all I was trying to say is that in the past I have so often come up with the wrong "fair use rationale" (the images were deleted anyway) that I have given up on even trying. Thanks again, and best wishes, <KF> 16:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:DeclarationOfTheTie.jpg

Yeah, I guess so. You could list it on [WP:IFD]], or WP:CV (under the "fair use claims needing a second opinion" section). – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 12:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Sihanouk.jpg

Regarding this image, I believe that Wikipedia has undergone substantial changes in avoding copyright infringments of media uploaders. Would you mind provide me an essential briefing about deciding the copyright of a media? Thanks. I.H.S.V. (talk) 16:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: RFA

I'm thinking that the RDH situation needs to go to arbitration, I don't see that there's any use trying to reason with him, and he persists in blanking. If you know anything about getting a case going, I'll support it. Matt 00:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I would certainly support anything of the like that happens. For now, however, I'd just wait it out, even given the circumstances. In all honesty, an RFA takes up a lot of time for a lot of people. Though there's no doubt in my mind that R.D.H. would have to be disciplined, but there is no reason to believe that he'll take the RFA seriously, given his past incivility and sarcastic attitude toward policy. At the same time, it seems his uncontrollable anger just seems to be hurting himself and causing him to think about leaving Wikipedia itself. (Note his recent drop in edit count.) Unless he decides to come back and continue his vandalism and incivility, I'd say that it's honestly not worth our time when we could be making edits that are actually worthwhile. Meanwhile,
The Working Man's Barnstar
I award you this Working Man's Barnstar for your fine work with so many tedious copyright issues. It's always nice to see someone else who understands the difference between copyright law and copyright paranoia. — Rebelguys2 talk 21:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Please by all means, TAKE ME TO ARBCOMM! I think I can defend my use of images as fair. I also believe I can present your behaviors as stalking and harassment under Wikipedia:Harassment and Wikistalking. Especially in the case of Mr. Kingston. (I find it highly disturbing how someone with such a petty, vindictive disposition as Matt would persue a career in nursing. No wonder medical costs keep going up:) I will also use this exchange as evidence, if you don't mind. Forget good faith, you assume NO FAITH, yet you insist I do. You seem willing to waste your time on here doing things which have nothing to do with BUILDING AN ENCYCLOPEDIA, except harass and drive away those few of us who do. But if you want to waste more time, fine, go for it. A stand must be made against Image Copyright Vogons. CONTEXT should be the key deciding factor in fairuse...not some "One Size fits All" policy forced upon the community without consent or consensus. Only a tiny fraction of images pose any real, serious danger of legal action. It is the ability to fairly judge context which determines the difference between good Wikipedians and Copyright paranoids and trolls. Oh I have more...but I'm saving that for the Arbcomm.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 09:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
My 2c worth. Matt, read the actual legislation. The recent FTA between Australia and the US has brought our copyright law into line with the US (i.e. the PD period has been increased from 50 to 70 years.) An image does NOT have to quote extensive source information in order for an image to qualify as fair use. The inclusion attribution to the author-artist suffices. In my job, dealing with audio and visual copyright material and fair use in a television broadcast environment, I experience less problems clearing footage or music for fair use in a commercial program than posting an image on the NON-PROFIT wikipedia. Go figure.--ansbachdragoner 02:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP CD

Thanks. I have read the creative commons licences and don't believe they require naming their creators on the CD? Attribution requirements look the same as GFDL to me: which is to say that their creators can be acknowledged/attributed indirectly. WP itself does not acknowledge them on the page they are reproduced of course. The attribution at http://fixedreference.org/2006-Wikipedia-CD-Selection/disclaimer.htm seems to me to comply with the licence. The Reuters one though I will look at. --BozMo talk 16:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you direct me to the part about using the creators preferred name, rather than attributing? At present the images are clearly attributed to their creator named as listed at WP. This seems appropriate given the target audience is UK school children who are not going to remember names listed on the PC anyway... and other people are going to have to look up other details since the actual names used are often WP user names etc. WP itself does not list the artist on the page impression, just hidden somewhere if people click on the thumnail which is a form of hidden attribution (and the thumbnail is all I use of course). Clearly I am not going to put people's name on the CD that would take a long time. However it is fairly quick and easy to remove a list of images and I will have to look at that if there is an advertising requirements.
Also I do not understand your comment about 4b. SOS have made no modification to the text and so AFAICP we are not required to list ourselves as a modifier; it is the authors of our own modifications required not of the previous publisher's. As a verbatim copier we are required to attribute and use front and back pages if they exist. Unfortunately we are also not allowed to use front and back pages (as far as I can work out what these may be: there is not clear statement on their existence) since they have logos on which require permission, a catch 22. We want to comply with this and applied some time ago to wikimedia for permission to use the logos. No clue when we will get an answer. --BozMo talk 06:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{imagevio}}

When you add the {{imagevio}} to pages, you must provide the source of the original image which has been used unjustifiable, in the form {{imagevio|http://www.website.com/imagename.jpg}}. Do not just add {{imagevio}}, as you did to Image:Louis lazare hoche.jpg.

If an image has no source indicated, add {{subst:nsd}}. If an image has no license information, but has a source, add {{subst:nld}}. If you think that an image's copyright status has been wrongfully asserted, use {{PUIdisputed}} and list the image on WP:PUI.

Thanks for your help watching out for copyright violations! Stifle (talk) 12:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RDHs contributions

I'm busy on the list, but it seems a tricky job.

Copyright for most of these things is bordering on PD, mainly because they have most likely qualify for being PD for either being old or their author being dead for some time. Most likely... but not certainly.

I'd suggest putting most of these up for PD-art (though I havent yet looked at them individually). The artist is most likely long gone, and eventually somebody will recognise the picture and attribute it correctly.

Some of them indeed already seem deleted, which is a shame because from a content point of view the whole collection is quite wonderful (if your into military history of course).

Cheers, The Minister of War (Peace) 20:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

And also, you tagged a few with {{imagevio}} without stating what it copvio'ed. Did you have a source, or did you mistag those? The Minister of War (Peace) 23:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Ah I see somebody above beat me to the question. Still, if you do have sources feel free to share them. The Minister of War (Peace) 23:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Reply (and further discussion) moved to User talk:The Minister of War/RDH. Cheers, The Minister of War (Peace) 10:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Cover FBK bio.jpg

Hello, MattKingston. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Cover FBK bio.jpg) was found at the following location: User:MattKingston/bio index. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 22:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:GeorgebrownUK.jpg

Hello, MattKingston. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:GeorgebrownUK.jpg) was found at the following location: User:MattKingston/bio index. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 05:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Johnny Cash At San Quentin.jpg

Hello, MattKingston. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Johnny Cash At San Quentin.jpg) was found at the following location: User:MattKingston/bio index. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 15:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Louis Armstrong.jpg

Hello, MattKingston. An automated process has found and will an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that is in your userspace. The image (Image:Louis Armstrong.jpg) was found at the following location: User:MattKingston/bio index. This image or media will be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. This does not necessarily mean that the image is being deleted, or that the image is being removed from other pages. It is only being removed from the page mentioned above. All mainspace instances of this image will not be affected Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 19:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of ATC code V09

A tag has been placed on ATC code V09, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD a1.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. hbdragon88 01:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Dobutamine.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Dobutamine.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 23:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Clonidine.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Clonidine.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 23:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)