User talk:Matsimons

License tagging for Image:MAD-Logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:MAD-Logo.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:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

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 Media copyright questions. 12:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

MAD Magical Arts Domain}}}
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a direct copy from. As a copyright violation, appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If the source is a credible one, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GFDL, you can comment to that effect on Talk:. If the article has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at, after describing the release on the talk page. However, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Calton | Talk 02:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Magical Arts Domain
Hi, Matsimons. I am sorry for the misunderstanding. The article was originally proposed for deletion ("prodded"), in which the article remains for five days to see if there are any objections. However, two speedy deletion tags were added and if the article is found to meet the criteria given, the article is deleted immediately. The criteria for speedy deletion are at Criteria for speedy deletion.

One of the concerns was that the information was copyrighted. It appears on this web page, and there was no indication that the content was used with permission. This is a criterion for speedy deletion.

The other concern was that the content was advertising rather than an encyclopedia article. The article is written in the first person and does not include information about why the group is notable enough for articles. For example, you could say how many members you have, how many hits your website gets and provide links to news articles that the group is mentioned in (if they are offline, give the name of the publication and the date). The guideline for notability of the Web can be found at Notability (web).

Besides being written in the first person, the article has another advertising sign, it gives information that would be used by potential members rather than information that would be of interest to encyclopedia readers. For example, the Google article does not tell people how to use Google or what is an inappropriate use. It also does not, or at least should not, encourage people to use Google. Information that is given includes the revenue, number of employees, the company history and controversies (any negative information that can be cited from reliable source will has to remain in an article, if it is relevant).

If there are articles that advertise in Wikipedia, they should be rewritten, if the entity is notable enough and the advertising is not too extreme, or deleted. Articles that advertise and would be difficult to turn into good articles can be deleted as well, regardless of notability. It might take a while for the notable articles marked for advertising cleanup are deleted because this is a new criterion. Since there are so many articles, it can take a while for the bad ones to be speedy deleted, proposed for deletion, nominated for deletion or marked for cleanup.

I am going offline right after I post this, but I should hopefully be back tomorrow, although it might be late and I might not make it at all. If you have more questions and do not want to wait, you can try Village pump (assistance). Talk to you later, Kjkolb 10:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, Matsimons. I assume that the text posted to my talk page was a rewrite. It is better, but it's now more of an article on Magic communities rather than the specific website. Information about the website, like how many members it has, how much traffic it gets, when it was created, who created it and the history of the site, would be good to add to it. You might want to check out other articles on websites. They can be found in Category:Websites and its subcategories. The closest subcategory for the website would probably be Category:Internet forums. By the way, make sure that you sign your posts on talk pages by putting four tildes in a row after them, like ~ . Otherwise people do not know who is talking. Talk to you later, Kjkolb 10:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Learning magic
Matsimons 09:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

thanx for the feed back, I have changed the article now, and realise the mistakes I made, it was not infact my intention to draw trafick to the forum. I was just trying to make people aware that its now easier to learn magic. I hope my new article Learning magic now reaches the standard neeed. I would also like to point out there is not copy right infringements at the forum, it is something we take very seriousley, and infact remove any copyrighted marterial if posted, and will ban members who do so. AS to the reference to the graphic from MAD forum, I am a graphic desinger, I was asked to create the graphic, I hold all copy rights to that iamage.

Theere are several reasons we dont alow copyrighted material. Firstly its ilegal, secondly, its against proboards rules and they would shut us down if we did, thirdly we suport magicians and encourage people to create knew magic, we like them to share there secrets with us so others can learn, but we would also like them to make money form there inventions, so for this reason we would not want to take money out of any other magicians pokcet by alowing copy righted material at the forum.

I am new to wikipedia so I am greatfull for all the ehlp you ahve given and advice you could give in the futre. If the current Learning magical article is ok, and im sure it is? I would like to ask you more questions on referals please.
 * Unfortunately, your link will be removed no matter what. It's a forum, which is specifically disallowed under WP:EL unless they're extraordinarily special, or they're a reliable source.  A forum is almost never a reliable source because we can't verify that the people are experts on the topic, or their identity for that matter.  You have to understand that your behaviour seems like a single purpose account, because all of your edits added your forum.  Your "Learning magic" article, unless you give reliable sources, would be considered original research, since the contents came from you, not another source.  Wikipedia does not allow original research.  ColourBurst 15:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, so the link was not a forum, but it's still not allowed under WP:EL. See No.2 under links to normally be avoided "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factualy inaccurate material or unverifiable research. Editors should always prefer Reliable sources."  The link falls under "unverifiable research".  ColourBurst 16:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

(See No.2 unde)

yes I read all of the information on links that shouldnt and should be included.

(factualy inaccurate material or unverifiable research.)

Factualy correct? thats very vague, who can decide what is correct or not, the whole point of a forum is to discuss and debate, but the point of MAD is to teach?

(unverifiable research)

I disagree, inforamtion is shared from expereince or from refercence from books videos or any other kind of media, if information is given at the forum that is incorrect then its removed.

Im fininding it very difacult to understand why the link to a information page about a forum seems to be the only issue here. I have follewd all of the rules that I have read. So I guess im not understanding something. So please try and explain to me again (sorry I truly dont get it) why the link to the page I supplied is not right? Yes its a page that I created, but only becasue I was asked to create, not for any gain for my self.

(Okay, so the link was not a forum, but it's still not allowed under)

I have researched Wikipedia and do not find anywhere where it sais the link I supplied is not correct. Please can you explain to me how it breaks Wikipedia rules? Is there anyway I can make the link correct? I think the article is very worthy, if the link is a problem becasue its only one link, then I can add more

("Any site that misleads the reader by use of factualy inaccurate material or unverifiable research. Editors should always prefer Reliable sources.")

What makes it factualy inaccurate? why is it not reliable?

I have been trying to supply information to wannabe magicians to explain why it nay have been hard before to learn, but that there are toher sources. I cant vouch for any other sources than those I know. Is this just a issue with the fact that people think that im trying to spam/promote/advertise a single forum?

I could give up and forget about Wiki, however because I found it so hard to learn and enter the magical world I feel obliged to help others. Not to drive trafick but to give them the knowldge why it has been so difacult, and how they may go aobut finding out more via books, clubs or forums.

Im not looking to promote one forum one book or one source, but giving reference to the best way to learn can only help those searching for the info. Should I add more links?

please advise me more on the subject.


 * Look at WP:RS, because I don't think you've read it thoroughly enough: Look out for false claims of authority. Websites that have numerous footnotes may be entirely unreliable. The first question to ask yourself is, "What are the credentials and expertise of the people taking responsibility for a website?" Anyone can post anything on the web. ColourBurst 19:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:No adds.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:No adds.jpg.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the image description page states the source and copyright status of the derivative work, it only names the creator of the original work without specifying the status of their copyright over the work.

Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the original image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ✗ plicit  07:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)