Jump to content

User talk:Matt605

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ck lostsword (talk | contribs) at 01:01, 24 August 2007 (→Amelia Earheart: correcting typo). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Library Image

Hi Matt605, I wanted to let you know to drop by Loyola Talk Page for an explanation regarding crediting/licensing images. Regards, --Riurik 05:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the link - Wikipedia:Image use policy. The relevant section:
User-created images
"...Also, user-created images may not be watermarked, distorted, have any credits in the image itself or anything else that would hamper their free use, unless, of course, the image is intended to demonstrate watermarking, distortion etc. and is used in the related article. All photo credit should be in a summary on the image description page."
Image:Loyola_nola_monroe_library.JPG is credited to you on the image description page.--Riurik 16:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Freeh.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Freeh.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The image was tagged as owned by the publisher of "The Pizza Connection" or by "Attorney Louis Freeh" who supplied the photograph to the publisher. So even thought the image was used in the book, it is credited on the title page of the book as having been provided by Freeh to the publisher. I don't know if "provided" means the same thing as identical. Either way, the use of the image is fair use because it is of a famous person. Anyway, it's long gone now.

Your recent edits to American Civil War

Your recent contribution(s) to the Wikipedia article American Civil War are very much appreciated. However, you did not provide references or sources for your information. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very important, and as you might be aware there is currently a drive to improve the quality of Wikipedia by encouraging editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. If sources are left unreferenced, it may count as original research, which is not allowed. Can you provide in the article specific references to any books, articles, websites or other reliable sources that will allow people to verify the content in the article? You can use a citation method listed at How to cite sources. Thanks! Accurizer 00:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amelia Earhart

Despite the recommendation to explain your contention that the Saipan disappearance claims were valid and the wholly unconvincing argument that you set forth, you have now edited the article to introduce your opinions. You did not have a consensus nor backing from at least two editors that commented on your assertions. Your edit has now rearranged the established format that had been crafted throughout a long year of writing and editing by various authors and editors, just at the time when the article was being reviewed for good article status. You did not provide references or sources for your information. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very important, and as you might be aware there is currently a drive to improve the quality of Wikipedia by encouraging editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. If sources are left unreferenced, it may count as original research, which is not allowed. If left as is, all of your submissions will be deleted. Can you provide in the article specific references to any books, articles, websites or other reliable sources that will allow people to verify the content in the article? You can use a citation method listed at How to cite sources. FWIW Bzuk 11:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I did not delete any of the work of anyone else. I did improve the article's organization and structure, although the formatting codes don't seem to want to take. I did add simple and well-known facts, many other facts are referenced elswhere in the article. The YouTube sources really can't be "sourced" as we would like because YouTube links aren't stable. I will add a cite in Chicago style to that section and provide a link, but the link could go dead.
Otherwise, should we remove all uncited facts from the article? That would trim it down quite considerably. There's plenty of other sensational stuff I didn't add -- like the phony distress calls heard on shortwave frequencies every time Earhart appeared in the newsreels. I also redacted this sentence from my improvements -- "History may forever leave as a mystery what might have transpired between the American feminist icon and the senior officers in the Japanese Imperial Navy that could have led to her summary execution."
Complete nonsense submitted under the spurious claim that the article is "improved" by inserting unverified statements is not acceptable. I have now moved to have your work reviewed as the first step toward a ban. Second level warning now issued. FWIW Bzuk 02:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I promise to keep improving the article. I will not respond to Bzuk until he ceases the slander and apologizes for the insults he has made. Matt605 22:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What BS- first you attempted to take your assertions to the talk page, were advised to seek consensus, didn't find any and still you went ahead and started making major changes to the article. These were reverted as uncited. Then the claim that the article is biased and inaccurate was made, and after the article has been edited and re-edited over a year's time. You want to make a contribution, start small, submit reliable and verified information, add citations and accept criticism. Unless you do that what you are doing is acting like a vandal. FWIW Bzuk 23:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I will even concede that some of the editorial writing that you have contributed is actually well-written and sensible but I repeat, make small contributions, find a reference source for contentious or controversial points and then we can talk. Here's an example, you made a statement that the search efforts conducted by the US Navy/US Coast Guard were rudimentary "and uncoordinated". That is a statement that could be challenged – how were they uncoordinated? who said they were uncoordinated? how reliable is the source provided? FWIW Bzuk 23:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I promise to keep improving the article. I will not respond to Bzuk until he ceases the slander and apologizes for the insults he has made. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Matt605 (talk • contribs) 00:41, August 21, 2007 (UTC).
I will tag all your unsupported statements with a citation tag and I will give you a suitable length of time to verify your claims. Bzuk 02:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Amelia Earheart

Following a request on my talk page, I have submitted a few suggestions on the talk page of the article and protected the page until the dispute is resolved. I hope that the conflict can be resolved swiftly. Thanks ck lostsword•T•C 01:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Matt605&oldid=153261228"