User talk:Star-one

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Meeting for worship

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Meeting for worship, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. For more information about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, take a look at our Five Pillars. Happy editing! Alphax ^τεχ 15:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Since I'm the one who deleted the entry, let me explain the reasons.

Contributions to wikipedia get licensed under GFDL (GNU Free Documentation License), about which you can read at the links at the bottom of any page. Notice however that GFDL explictly allows content to be used in commercial (that is for-profit) documents (so for example you could download whole wikipedia and sell it as long as you hold the clauses of the GFDL). Howwever the text contributed was taken from another source which explictly stated that only noncommercial (nonprofit) use was granted, thus it becomes incompatible with GFDL and we cannot host it (it becomes a copyrigth violation as we would be giving it away to commercial uses). I hope this clears the issue. -- (drini's page|☎) 15:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

hi drini, just trying to get to the bottom of the problem here !

as well as being the original author of the page on wikipedia, i'm also the actual author of the text itself, & almost certainly the controller of the website or other publication you've seen which has the copyright/left notice which is causing difficulty.

i accept aphax's view that there probably needs to be some text editing to make it more suitable for wikipedia than its original usage, but i do think substantially the article is of use on wikipedia to expand its coverage of quakerism, so please let me know what needs changing, either here or elsewhere, to make that happen.

simon

I don't know about the content (neutral point of view, cleanup etc). My only concern is about the licensing terms, and you being aware that if you repost the content, it will allow commercial use too. -- (drini's page|☎) 15:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Wgyf-1985.jpg

This image may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Wgyf-1985.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 18:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Wgyf-2005.jpg listed for deletion

Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 18:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Birmingham

I changed your wording back for the article's introductory paragraph because I think 'many' is too vague. Being objective I think 'generally' is entirely fair - especially by reference to, for instance, references from any reputable news source. For example, see what a search for 'second city' brings up on the BBC (you'll have to ignore things such as 'Durham is the second city to consider implementing a congestion charge': http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?scope=all&edition=d&q=%22second+city%22&go.x=23&go.y=17&go=go Matthew 16:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify - I certainly didn't find 'second city' being used of Manchester except in reference to the MORI poll from 2002. In general parlance, 'second city' is used to refer to Birmingham only as far as I can tell. Matthew 16:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)