User talk:Mbrandall/talkArchive1

ADFA Suggestions
Hi. The AFDA article is looking a lot better now, thanks for your work. One thing that grabs me about the article though is it's total lack of wikilinking. If you could link appropriate terms it would be great. I also have some concerns over copyright status. What is the source for the two images you have added to the article, and I notice several sections of text that appear to have been copy and pasted into the article. This type of copyright violation is not acceptable and may result in your recent improvements having to be deleted. What is your opinion on this? --Martyman- (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The source for those two images is a press release from the Australian Defence Force Academy and can be used to advertise the defence academy. (they have therefore been retagged as Publicity photos)Mathew Randall 23:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * That is an interesting claim that orders are not covered by copyright. Do you have a resource which backs up this claim? --Martyman- (talk) 23:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I also contest your claim of these being publicity images (note: you missed retagging one of them). By that agrument any photo on any website could be claimed as a publicty image and ripped off. Anyway these kind of fair use claims only stand up if there is no way for free images to be obtained. See also the defence website copyright information. --Martyman- (talk) 00:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes the fact that Orders by a military officer are not contained anywhere in the Copyright Act of 1968 (Compilation up to Act amendments up to No.130 - 9 November 2005. As well as the fact that copyright on orders is not specified under the Defence Force Disciplne Act of 1982 (including all amendments since) AND the Defence Act of 1903 (and all amendments since). It simply seems to be something that was spoken and then written. It cannot be copyrighted becuase the copyright was not sought.
 * Mathew Randall 00:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * This agrument actually backs me up. The principle of copyright in Australia is that it is automatic and does not need to be sought. The fact there is no copyright dispensation mentioned anywhere (I too search through the current copyright act) is an indication that military orders should be treated no diffrently to any other work of the commonwealth. --Martyman- (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I suggest you look up what is covered by crown copyright. Any work produced by someone while employed by the government is automatically covered by crown copyright. Not only that but any work produced by anyone while not employed by the government is automatically copyrighted to them unless explicitly released into the public domain. The fact that the orders are downloadable is no indication that the are not covred by copyright. In fact they are covered by the copyright of the defence website that I already linked to. --Martyman- (talk) 00:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for removing the information. I am willing to be proven wrong on this, but without any hard evidence that this is the case we can't just assume things are free of copyright. This opens wikipedia up to litigation and in my opinion dilutes the quality of the work by opening question about it's legality. I have asked on the Australian Notice Board if anyone can back up your claim. You never know, maybe someone has a reference that will prove you are correct and I will take back my objection. --Martyman- (talk) 00:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Rank insignia
Hi again. I am also sorry to inform you but the tag AustraliaGov is not an approriate copyright for images uploaded to wikipedia. If the photos of rank insignia have been removed from a copyrighted website (even a government one) then they can't be uploaded to here. --Martyman- (talk) 22:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The images will be deleted until Commonwealth Permission is obtained, or until I can make my own. Mathew Randall 23:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It is not just a matter of getting Commonwealth permission to use the images on wikipedia. It is a mtter of getting them to agree to release them under a free license. A free non-commercial license is not acceptable. --Martyman- (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Re: english insignia. Good question. I find that rational a bit confusing. The insignia itself may well not be covered by copyright but any photo of drawing of it should be covered by copyright to the person who tookt he image or drew the drawing. I think that all that that rule really means is that you could take your own photos of the insignia and not be done for copyright infringment. --Martyman- (talk) 23:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not particularly concerned by these insignia as much as the text and other images. If you want to retag them with the same rational as the UK ones feel free, otherwise you need to ask an administrator to remove them. I still think it a bit questionably, but better than the original tag that made it clear the images had no right to be there. --Martyman- (talk) 00:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It seems all the other insignia are located on Commons rather than wikipedia directly. I would suggest uploading your ones there and getting an admin to remove the local en.wikipedia copies. You will need to create another account at commons to upload. You can use the same template that they use by entering . Good luck. --Martyman- (talk) 00:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I should point out commons has the advantage of then being available to all other language wikipedias as well. Once your local copies of the images are deleted (by an admin) the commons ones will automatically be used instead without having to change any code. Let me know if you hit any problems. --Martyman- (talk) 00:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry for not getting back to you earlier. I am not too sure what the correct procedure is. I think an admin could just delete them for you if you have already uploaded them to commons. All of the other deletion process thingies are way too slow and involve buerocratic hoops. --Martyman- (talk) 07:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Talk page etiquette
Please note that it is good ettiquette to indent any responses on tlak pages using the : symbol. It is also considered extremely bad manners to remove content from otehr peoples talk pages. Please refrain from doing so again. --Martyman- (talk) 00:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

ADFA
Mate, as an Army Officer Cadet now I can tell you that talking about being a member of the ADF, especially when combined with political views, is highly discouraged. So I would suggest that you remove that stuff from your user page. Good work on the ADFA article though, I did a bunch of work on it a long time ago and meant to update it further as a bit of a personal project, but didn't really get around to it. From a editing point of view though, I think some of your additions might be a little too detailed. Don't just rewrite everything in the ASOs. Does anyone looking at an ADFA article to get a sense of what the Academy is about really need to know which divisions are in which squadrons, which sections are in the lines, and the DDO timetable? Also, you really shouldn't have removed the SSTs bit from the article, they're an important part of military training at ADFA, especially for Army.

Finally, you've got a few errors (for instance, the WTSS is actually RMC's and ) but that's OK. They're minor and I'll fix them up.

Good luck with your wiki-ing and do you know if you've been accepted yet? If not, good luck on that too. Opiniastrous 08:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, all right mate, most of that stuff that you wrote about the US academies being in a lot of detail makes sense, so we may as well keep it all (I've reorganised the article but I've kept all that stuff, don't you worry). Oh, and trust me, all that political stuff does matter, I know from personal experience...  Do not discuss personal politics in conjunction with your position as a government employee.

btw, it's bad etiquette to not leave a signature in wikipedia on discussion boards. If you just type in four tilds (Opiniastrous 10:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)) at the end of your comments, wiki will do it automatically for you.


 * Hey again, I suggest you get rid of some of the ADFA stuff on your talk page: there's clearly a couple of guys who don't like it and are just going to vandalise it if they see it. Up to you though... Opiniastrous 11:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)