This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:TiVo.png. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Peter O. (Talk) 16:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Image:Tivo.png seems to be an unlicensed derivative work from the original Tivo logo, such as the one at Image:TivoLogo.png. Even if you start with a blank sheet of paper, and work freehand, you can't copy parts of another image. It is listed for speedy deletion. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:FPLP-1959.jpg
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:FPLP-1959.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:
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:FPLP-1961.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:
Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
(cur) last 19:31, 14 November 2006 HokieRNB (Talk | contribs) (re-revert - this is not plagiarized, I developed the content in question and release it for use on wikipedia)
(cur) last 20:13, 13 November 2006 52.128.30.11 (Talk) (elder in the Bible)
response
Hroðulf - thanks for your enthusiastic defense of the content on the elder page, in making sure that it does not violate copyright violations. I assure you that I developed those thoughts myself, gave proper attribution to both the Scriptures and the external authors, and release them for use in both Wikipedia and on Theopedia as well. I understand they may not stand the test of time nearly as well in such a public and neutral forum, but I think they are a fine beginning of a biblical understanding of eldership and I look forward to seeing how they are developed here. Please let me know if you have additional concerns. Oh, and regarding the blogpost from http://bowingdown.wordpress.com/2006/05/26/sheep-make-baaaaad-shepherds, I hadn't seen that material before, but I think it's very well thought out and is good reading. I didn't however, see any connection that would make it appear it had been plagiarized. HokieRNB 18:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
No problem. Since HokieRNB at Theopedia had precedence over your anonymous contribution here, HokieRNB was entitled to proper attribution. Since I guess both HokieRNBs are one and the same person, I think that is dealt with.
I have one remaining niggle, and that is: much of these seminary lecture notes "[1]". {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help) so closely resemble your words (for example the list of qualifications is identical) that, at minimum, proper attribution of the source of the commentary should be acknowledged (is it you or Strauch or ...?) We may even find out that the original commentary is not in the public domain nor subject to fair use. Sorry to be such a worry wort. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I should come clean and say that I am happy to see extensive copy and paste from public domain source—the lengthy quotes at Presbyterian polity#The Elder are my doing. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
response 2
I understand your concern. The reality is that you won't find too many lists of qualifications that differ much because they are taken from the exact set of biblical passages, and when you use the same common translations (likely the NASB and ESV) you are quite likely to get identical lists. However, you have astutely observed in this case that they are in fact from the same source. The wording here was developed by the leadership at Grace Community Church and subsequently adopted into the proposed constitution for my home church. I would not be opposed to listing the 2006 notes as a resource. Our church documents need not be cited, we are glad to release them to the public domain. HokieRNB 19:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Sources should be always cited, even if they are released into the public domain. There is plenty of opportunity for independent authors to produce different results, even when reading the same bible translations: for example Strong's concordance comes up with different numbers for the occurances of the three Greek words. Please remove the material and restore only freely licensed work with citations for the sources. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Copyright issues
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hroðulf - the more I read and discover, the more I'm frustrated by what can't be used on Wikipedia. While I have no choice to agree with you in terms of what needs to be deleted, I disagree in principle that the use of these images actually amounts to copyright infringement. The whole point of the use of logo images is to point people back to the products for which they were created. The one that really gets me boiling is Google... give me a break. Sorry I just needed to vent. I submit. Please delete the images. HokieRNB 13:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not an admin, so I can only delete links to images; not images themselves. Once the tivo thing was tagged, a more powerful volunteer came along with a mop and cleaned up. It looks like someone made an alternative for you: File:Tivo.pngnew more free Tivo.png It is ok to vent! Copyright law in some countries allows the defense against infringement of "fair use" or "fair dealing", but that is not for much more than "critical commentary" on the copyright material itself. One of the five pillars is to create a free encyclopedia that anyone can use for any purpose, and the more unoriginal work that appears, even in user pages, the harder that task is. In some cases I believe you were infringing, in other cases you were just contravening house rules that you were not aware of at the time. If you want to use logos to advertise Google or Firefox or most other good causes, you are better off getting your own website, where such things are usually allowed, because here, you can't use anything that isn't copyleft or free (libre). --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Hokiehead.gif)
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Hokiehead.gif. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 15:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
License tagging for Image:FPLP Maggie.png
Thanks for uploading Image:FPLP Maggie.png. 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. 16:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Image:Facebook.png listed for deletion
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Facebook.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr.) 20:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC) Note: The nomination was completed on Dec 16th
If no one objects to the deletion within five days by removing the prod notice, the article may be deleted without further discussion. If you remove the prod notice, the deletion process will stop, but if an editor is still not satisfied that the article meets Wikipedia guidelines, it may be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion for consensus. NickelShoe (Talk) 17:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
