User talk:Daniel3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello

Contents

[edit] Gospel Art Kit

This is a fairly complex question because of the nature of copyright and the Church's strangely worded license to use materials which says:

Use of all materials published herein, including, visuals, text, icons, display, database, general information, etc., is subject to the following conditions:
  1. Materials may not be used for commercial purposes, however, materials may be reproduced by media personnel for use in traditional public news forums.
  2. Materials may be reproduced for incidental, noncommercial church or home purposes with the exception of Web site use.
  3. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the copyright owner reserves sole discretion and right to deny, revoke, or limit use, including reproduction.[1]

Because of the restriction that it can not be used for commercial purposes, any images for which the Church owns the copyright can not be used on Wikipedia unless a fair use rational exists. (In general images uploaded to Wikipedia must be public domain or under a license that allows redistribution like GFDL cc-by or cc-sa or cc-by-sa - sometimes referred to as a free license since it is freely redistributable - though someone distributing it can charge a fee.)

However, some of the works in the Gospel Art Kit (GAK) are not copyrighted by the Church either because they are copyrighted by someone else (in which case you would need that other person's permission) or they are older and thus in the public domain. Since the Church doesn't own the copyright they can't restrict the reproduction of the original artwork.

Thus some of the Church's digital files can be uploaded since there is no copyright in the digital reproduction of a public domain work. This is because there is no copyright in the digital file since copyright only protects "original works of authorship."

To know which ones can be uploaded the rule is:

If published in the United States it must have been made public prior to 1923
If published outside the US, the author of the work must have died prior to 1936 (more than 70 years ago).

If either condition is true about the original work (not the date the picture or digital image was taken) that is the subject of the image, then, yes, it can be uploaded. For example, my quick check of some randome images found that if the artist is Harry Anderson it can't be used since he is still alive, same with Clark Kelley Price images. However, #244 Christ and the Rich Young Ruler has a copyright notice from the Church claiming a 1997 copyright, but the image was painted by Heinrich Hofmann who died in 1911 so any reproduction can not be copyrighted and that picture can be uploaded - if you do add it to Hofmann's article too.

I recommend uploading all images to commons:Main Page rather than to the English Wikipedia so that it can be used by any language and in any Wikimedia Foundation project. --Trödel 22:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The other problem is the exception about web site use. The Church has generally frowned on the use of any of their material on anything other than the official web sites. I once asked for permission to quote a section of an out-of-print church manual and was denied. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 04:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits on Nancy Pelosi

Please read Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, which all articles must follow. This is especially a concern at Nancy Pelosi. Wikipedia is a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia; it is not a place to argue a particular point of view. Thank you.


[edit] DNC imam controversy

An article that you created, DNC imam controversy, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DNC imam controversy Thank you. SkierRMH 08:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pope Benedict reversion

With sadness I've reverted your last addition to the Pope Benedict article. While I believe the BBC documentary is entirely on-topic, reflects a topic that is important to cover in the appropriate article, and greatly angers me, I agree with the logic of its exclusion by previous editors for this reason: as near as I can tell the content on Google Video is a violation of the copyright of the BBC. Please note my emphasis on "as far as I can tell", if you can establish otherwise I will be a firm proponent of including that link. --Joe Decker 17:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not a violation of the copyright of the BBC because you can watch the documentary for free on the website of the BBC. Look at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/5402928.stm Daniel3 18:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Awesome! Would you have any qualms then if I were to replace the link you gave there with this one? http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_5400000/newsid_5403100/5403158.stm?bw=nb&mp=wm Being that that's from the BBC web site, it'd avoid this question in the future. By the way, I can see why you might have gone for the Google Video link, I had a helluva time trying to get a reusable link for that video out of the BBC. --Joe Decker 18:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Hi Daniel. I see you have returned an outside link for the BBC documentary to the Benedict XVI article. Unfortunately, this source violates WP policy on biographies of living people (WP:BLP) and neutral point of view, especially with respect to undue weight. Note,

  1. The article earlier mentions the document referred to in the documentary, and notes the very limited, almost irrelevant, applicability of it in linking the scandal to Ratzinger in any meaningful way. Even notwithstanding more severe issues noted below, this link thus gives undue weight to the connection.
  2. John Allen, writing for the National Catholic Reporter, points out that "The documentary, part of the prestigious BBC "Panorama" series, nevertheless exhibits a striking callousness with regard to the facts, especially concerning [...] Crimen Sollicitationis" (italics mine per style only). Please note that neither Allen nor NCR (especially the latter) have any reputation for being apologists for Catholic orthodoxy. Now normally this would still not prevent opposing perspectives to be covered, in a perhaps he said, she said basis. However, this article falls under WP:BLP, so the standards that sources must hold to are quite high. A source like that with its track record (especially noting the recent tempest alleging, rightly or wrongly, anti-Christian bias at the BBC) is not a good source for this article.

That being said, I note that the extra BLP standards do not apply to the abuse scandal article itself, and the tenuous link to Ratzinger would become irrelevant as the entire video pertains to the scandal. That would be a much more appropriate place for this particular source (if it isn't already one), so feel free to link to it there. I also noticed you did not use the google link or the BBC one itself (both violating different parts of WP:EL), but rather a new one. I take this as an effort to try to satisfy WP:EL, and commend you for it. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Salt Lake Temple edits

You are one of 4 users and IP addresses that have added the exact same POV pushing text into the Salt Lake Temple article. Please do not add this text again. To continue to do so without getting concensus on the talk page is vandalism for which you could be blocked. --Trödel 05:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Salt Lake Temple, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jaksmata 21:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you insert a spam link, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted as well, preventing anyone from linking to them from any site that uses the MediaWiki spam blacklist, which includes all of Wikimedia and Wikipedia. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) (Talk) 21:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Categorization

Just a heads up, so you won't think I'm not on your side - With categories, if a portal is included in a sub-category (child), it should not also be included in the category (parent). Also, if a portal can be appropriately sub-categorized, it should be done. This is part of the effort to avoid over-categorization. So, the LDS and BofM portals are properly included in Category:Christianity portals which is a sub-cat of Abrahamic religion portals. Hope that makes sense. Let me know. -NThurston 21:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free images

Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, including several image uploads. Please be aware that images which may be subject to copyright, sometimes called here "non-free" or "fair use" images, can only be used in what is called articlespace - the main articles of Wikipedia. They cannot be used in other namespaces, such as the Portal: or Wikipedia: namespaces. I have removed a couple of images from Portal pages which you mistakenly added. Let me know if there's anything I can help you understand about this policy or other instances of fair use on Wikipedia. (ESkog)(Talk) 22:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I linked you to the proper page before. Here is a [[direct link to the section of that page. See point #9. Please do not continue reinserting copyright images outside of article space. (ESkog)(Talk) 22:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Etruskian gold plates.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Etruskian gold plates.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages 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 fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture of Pope in mosque

Hey there. I see you changed the picture in the Pope Benedict XVI article in the Islam section. I have no problem with the picture, but thought it would be a good idea to change the caption, which now states "the 17th century mosque". I assume it's the Blue Mosque, but didn't want to change it without verifying. If you know, please change the caption so it states where it is. Thanks. --Anietor 18:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stop substing copyright templates

Hello, can you please stop substing copyright templates? It's better if you just transclude them. I've come across and fixed enough of yours to realize you were doing this fairly regularly. It seems like a lot of them use a weird version of the template, too, because none of them have the categories included. Thanks! --Strangerer (Talk) 00:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Pope in mosque.jpg

Hi, I deleted this image and commented it in the articles, because it is an AFP picture and therefore a copyright violation, if I am correct. (A photo from a press agency, not so famous as to be iconic, to illustrate an article on the subject of the photo does not fall under fair use) -- lucasbfr talk 09:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Golden_plates_of_pyrgi.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Golden_plates_of_pyrgi.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:BofMChart000.pdf

Thanks for uploading Image:BofMChart000.pdf. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attack

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on this page, by Roger Davies (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because the article is a page created primarily to disparage its subject or a biography of a living person that is controversial in tone and unsourced, where there is no neutral point of view version in the history to revert to. (CSD G10).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting the article, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate the article itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 14:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attack

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on this page, by Roger Davies (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because the article is a page created primarily to disparage its subject or a biography of a living person that is controversial in tone and unsourced, where there is no neutral point of view version in the history to revert to. (CSD G10).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting the article, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate the article itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 14:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attack

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on this page, by Roger Davies (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because the article is a page created primarily to disparage its subject or a biography of a living person that is controversial in tone and unsourced, where there is no neutral point of view version in the history to revert to. (CSD G10).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting the article, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate the article itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 14:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright images

Hello. I've been looking at the images you uploaded to Wikipedia [2]. All of them claim "fair use for educational purposes". However, I'm afraid that this has more to do with your intuition that they should be be free images and little to do with their actual copyright status or whether or not they satisfy our policy on non-free images. Most if not all of them are quite simply copyright violations whether you like it or not. For instance, Image:Bibel and the Book of Mormonl.jpg is taken from [3] which states pretty unequivocally that "Materials may be reproduced for incidental, noncommercial church or home purposes with the exception of Web site use." I'm giving you a heads-up on all of this but I intend to delete most images in a few days unless you can provide clear evidence that the images are free or that they meet the fair-use criteria. Note in particular criteria 1, 2, 8 and 10 which most of these images do not meet. Please contact me for any further questions. Pascal.Tesson 16:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are entirely missing my point. You say that these images "are indeed fair use because they are of comparable educational value". For one thing, I'm not sure what you mean by "comparable" (comparable to what?). In any case, the fact that an image has educational value does not mean that it qualifies as fair use and the fact that they illustrate important parts of the LDS doctrine is just as irrelevant. Again, please take the time to carefully read the relevant policy and please do not remove the tags I put on the images without adding a detailed rationale explaining how the images qualify as fair use. Thank you, Pascal.Tesson 18:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I have absolutely no problems with the Mormons and I can assure you I'd react the same way if you had uploaded pictures dealing with koalas. However, I do have a problem with copyright images being used improperly on Wikipedia and I do have a bit of a problem with the fact that you clearly are choosing to ignore the relevant policy. I invite you to submit any inquiries you may have about these images to Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems where I am sure anyone will confirm that these images are clear-cut copyright violations. Pascal.Tesson 19:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Please go to www.lds.org and look at the bottom of the page. Click on Rights and Use Information. Read carefully. I draw your attention to these two sentences in particular: All material found at this site (including visuals, text, icons, displays, databases, media, and general information), is owned or licensed by us. You may view, download, and print material from this site only for your personal, noncommercial use unless otherwise indicated. In addition, materials may be reproduced by media personnel for use in traditional public news forums unless otherwise indicated. You may not post material from this site on another web site or on a computer network without our permission. You may not transmit or distribute material from this site to other sites. I don't think there's really any point in arguing the point further. Pascal.Tesson 19:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
You are quoting that sentence (It is not our responsibility, however, to determine what "Fair Use" means for persons wishing to use materials from this site. That remains wholly a responsibility of the user. ) as if it means: if you think it's fair use then you're right. It is quite clear that this is not what this sentence means. In any case, the fact remains that these images are not free images and that the articles in which the illustrations are being used are perfectly viable without them. As such they do not qualify for fair-use on Wikipedia. At the risk of repeating myself, this is explained quite clearly on the relevant policy. Pascal.Tesson 19:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

In light of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DAde it is fairly clear that you are abusing multiple accounts and are in fact DAde (talk · contribs) who was blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing strikingly similar to yours. So I have also blocked this account indefinitely. You may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Pascal.Tesson 01:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)