Jump to content

User talk:Mattblythe

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Mattblythe, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Enlightenment for Beginners, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard. Thank you.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Enlightenment for Beginners

[edit]

A tag has been placed on Enlightenment for Beginners, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your help Marcus, the page is deleted already. This wasn't the page I wanted saved this was a duplicate page I made in error. The User deleted BOTH pages without discussion. I have raised a review which is undergoing discussion this week! The user also deleted a picture of the book cover making it as SPAM where indeed there are thousands of similar pictures on wiki commons that are not considered SPAM! I am new here but there seems to be a lot of this biased kind of personal deleting stuff happening at wiki for no apparent reason. LOL

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_June_8#Enlightenment_for_Beginners_by_Matthew_Blythe —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattblythe (talk • contribs) 23:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Chuck Spezzano

[edit]

A tag has been placed on Chuck Spezzano requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ttonyb (talk) 04:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:ChuckSpezzanoWebBlog9.jpg

[edit]

A tag has been placed on File:ChuckSpezzanoWebBlog9.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ttonyb (talk) 04:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ttony1 I tagged the speedy deletion request with a hangon tag and added a discussion on the files page but the file has been deleted already without discussion. I notice that you deleted the discussion on this file aslo. I will be raising a discussion on this in due course! Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattblythe (talk • contribs) 05:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, Ttonyb1 did not delete the talk page; he is not able to do so, as he is not an administrator. He simply tagged it for deletion. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info, then whoever deleted it ignored the hangon tag AND deleted the discussion. FOUR TILDES Mattblythe (talk) 06:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Spezzano

[edit]

There are a couple of issues with the article. First of all, there are exact copies of the referenced text. In addition, there are also sections that are slight reformulations of the original text. Both are violations of Wikipedia guidelines and US copyright laws that will not be resolved by removing the removing the citation. Secondly, the individual may not meet the Wikipedia criteria for notability. Please note that Wikipedia notability and "real-world" notability are not the same. I suggest you read the articles I have referred to here and the articles referred to in the CSD and if you have any specific questions, please let me know. ttonyb (talk) 05:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello Ttonyb1, is it necessary that I obtain permission to use this material I wrote the article in my own words removing personal and third party references? The information in question has been released to the general public. Notable is notable that you have not heard of the person in subject speaks only of your own personal eduction in this subject and is not a reliable judgment on the subject. Regards, Mattblythe (talk) 05:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC) Matt Blythe[reply]
If you rewrite the material so that it does not resemble the original text there is no reason to get permission; however, slight reformulation will not suffice. In other words, it has to be a complete rewrite. I do not know what you mean that the material has been released to the general public – there is no evidence the material has been released for use with a license compatible with Wikipedia.
You seem to have missed the point of Wikipedia notability. It has nothing to do with my knowledge or lack of knowledge of the subject. If you had read WP:BIO as I suggested, you would have seen that Wikipedia notability is based on criteria in WP:BIO supported by reliable sources. I suggest you not assume the level of anyone's knowledge that contributes to Wikipedia, nor should one assume the exclusive nature of any information presented in an article. My best to you. ttonyb (talk) 05:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ttonyb1 Are you saying I need either to establish copyright permission to publish this article or re-write entirely? I mean like a newspaper article, when it is released to the general public it is in the public domain and therefore does not have a copyright licence. Whether I read the article about notability, of which Chuck meets that criteria fully, what I am suggesting is that you not judge someone to be UN-noteworthy unless you have evidence to support that which you clearly do not. Although Chuck Spezzano's outstanding world wide contribution to his field is noteworthy and the evidence to back this claim is overwhleming. Have a nice day! Mattblythe (talk) 06:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if you are not the author, you either need to have the author confirm his permission to use the text in Wikipedia or rewrite the text so it no longer resembles the original. As far as the notability goes, you again seem to have missed the point of Wikipedia notability. Anyone can use the Wikipedia criteria to assess Wikipedia notability. It has nothing to do with my knowledge or lack of knowledge of the subject. "Real-world" notability has little or nothing to do with Wikipedia based notability. I again suggest you read WP:BIO, WP:V, and WP:RS. BTW - newspaper articles are copyrighted using the same criteria as all other published text that was agreed to in the 1976 Copyright Act and Berne Convention agreement. Again, unless you are referring to the period after the duration of the copyright, I do not understand what you mean "released to the general public". ttonyb (talk) 15:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I read the wiki articles on notability. You recommended that a page be speedily deleted for (amongst other things) the subject not being notable! When it quite clearly meets the wiki criteria for notablility and in the real world. In case you hadn't done your research throughly, the subject matter is not waiting for your approval before he becomes notable! Are you suggesting that wikipedia articles are NOT reflecting the "real world"...? Because if you are I tend to agree with you! Matt_Blythe 02:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record the article is in no way reflective or indicative of a "Close Connection" with said Chuck Spezzano, the article was written solely from information gathered from public sources on the internet, thanks anyways! Matt_Blythe 06:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:ChuckSpezzanoBlackandWhite.jpg

[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:ChuckSpezzanoBlackandWhite.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. If you have attained (or will attain in the future) permission or proof that the image is released under the license that you specify, you may foreword it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Note that, on the file page, you state that the image is not to be used for commercial purposes; however, the license that you licensed the image under allows the image to be used commercially. There is no option for an image on Wikipedia to be licensed under a license that limits the image to non-commercial use; all images must be able to be used for any purpose, unless it is a file that is used under fair use rational. This image, however, is not and cannot be used on Wikipedia through fair use. That's a totally different topic. Thanks. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK I will check my schedule ! Mattblythe (talk) 06:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your comments

[edit]

As mentioned before to you, please sign any comments that you make on talk pages by adding four tildes (~~~~) to the end of your message. This is basically a must, as it allows others to identify whoever wrote a comment. Thank you. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say that? As far as I am aware, it does not explicitly say that it is "recommended", but rather, it is something that should be done. Even though it is a guideline, editors are still expected to follow it, and not doing so can lead to consequences. In addition, editors that are not logged in can still sign their comments; instead of a username, it just records their IP address. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I read it somewhere. Maybe someone edited the page since then? In any case "should" is an implication not the law. If wiki wanted ALL discussions signed they would add that to their wiki scripts. Wiki could just as easily ask editors to sign their posts since their is no mention for newcomers or anyone as to what happens if you do not sign your posts?
Or if you miss it by mistake?! MattWithCharisma (talk) 06:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would think it to be too complicated to install a script to automatically sign posts. Edits to talk pages are too diverse to be automatically signed, as not all edits require signing. A script would often fail at identifying what to sign and what not to; it's not human. That's why it is expected of users to apply common sense and sign their own posts when necessary. There is a bot that does sign posts that have aren't signed, but it's limited; not all comments are signed by it. If one continues to make actions against established guidelines and policies when they are clearly knowledgeable of those guidelines and policies (which is that one should sign their posts), that's known as refusing to "get the point" and is considered disruptive editing; that results in a block. Of course, everyone accidentally forgets to sign their post every once in a while; I've done it in the past, I still do it, and so does everyone else. Nothing's wrong with that. I'm not saying that you are doing what I'm about to say, but when someone does something against guidelines when they know that they shouldn't be, that is pretty much always destined to end up in a block if one continues that behavior, which is the answer to your question, as well as any other time pme violates guidelines/policies excessively and/or malignantly. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When is an instance of a discussion NOT requiring signing, please give an example? Are you a programmer? Do you write scripts or just judge them to be complicated? Malignantly is an evil word, please refrain from using it on my talk page! Thank you Matt_Blythe 07:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say discussion, I said an edit. There are many templates used on talk pages that aren't signed; for example, there are WikiProject banners that go on the top of article talk pages to categorize the page by topic, importance, and quality, along with there being templates or just plain messages that notify users of talk page guidelines that aren't signed. There are templates used to request input into a discussion or to direct a user to a new message on another page. Those, too, are also unsigned. There are coding and headers that users place on their own talk page that aren't signed. Meanwhile, at the same time, there are templates and notifications that are to be signed, such as block notifications. There are also non-talk pages where discussion takes place. And they are always changing. To develop a script for something that is never set in stone and that requires human logic to correctly justify whether an edits needs a signature or not? One could certainly be made that may come close, but I would think that there would be too many false positives. For something as common as discussions, automatic signing would prove to be too problematic. As for me and scripts, I haven't written any, but have witnessed and wrote rules for at least one, enough times where I know how they pretty much work on Wikipedia. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 07:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The rule is "All discussions should be signed" and "Edits should not be signed" of course these are subject to change at any moment! Kevin they are not paying you nearly enough!! Have a great day :) Matt_Blythe 07:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]



Have a Nice Day!

[edit]
  • Smile!
    Smile!


  • Just sign here if you would like to wish me a happy day! Thank you :) <---(yes that is a smiley not wiki markup language)



Matt_Blythe 07:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:InspirationCardEnlightementPackChuckSpezzano.gif

[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:InspirationCardEnlightementPackChuckSpezzano.gif. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 18:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Thanks Kevin. This image is hosted on my web space, I am licenced to use this image as I see fit so it might meet the "fair-use" criteria. However I am also writing to the copyright holder requesting full permissions in writing. Regards, Matt_Blythe 21:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mattblythe&oldid=1049409994"