User talk:Terrillja/Archives/03/2010
 | 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. |
A tag has been placed on B Zhao, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo.
Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you believe that there is a reason to keep the redirect, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. B.Wind (talk) 06:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Ady Gil deletions
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} Please stop removing referenced material and references from the Ady Gil article. You are either misrepresenting or misunderstanding the results of the Request for Comment. You are also covering up details that readers may find useful. There IS some controversy about Bethune's arrest, but you certainly wouldn't know that now that all that material and those references have been removed. Also, please discuss deleting controversial material BEFORE deletion on the talk page, not in the deletion comments. Thank you. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- It has been discussed, people wanted it out, and you refuse to hear it. At some point you need to move on. By the way, please don't link to copyright violations or you might, you know, get blocked in short order.--Terrillja talk 03:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- The hooding line was discussed, not the relevance of Bethune's arrest. There is a section about his detention and arrest, therefore is seems logical that the details of his detention and arrest are relevant. WHICH reference is a copyright violation? All four of the references you deleted? Do you have any proof of this? Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- The one with the AP logo in the bottom corner, that would mean Associated Press. The video is not on their website, it was ripped off and reposted. That is a violation. The other youtube video of the news broadcast from someone who has some sort of political agenda according to their profile, that belongs to the news organization. Just because you can find something on youtube doesn't mean it is legally there.--Terrillja talk 07:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- This is from the ABC video poster's home page on YouTube: "This channel is for the non-commercial, non-profit fair use for the purposes such as providing diverse perspectives on the specific geopolitic issues to those who are used to the US and Western news media, and also for the purposes of academic research and commentary. The video news clips uploaded on this channel are under the permission directly from the copyrights owners and consistent with the terms of use established by the copyrights owners. Under the very few exceptions video clips from other sources are uploaded with the intention to be protected under the Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976 in the United States where the YouTube and its parent Google company are located." Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- Not sure what you are talking about, I don't see any reference to an ABC video. If you mean the profile of newsupload2010, there is no proof that they actually have any right to anything. if you had linked to the actual news organization website, you would have something to stand on in terms of not violating copyright, but you didn't.--Terrillja talk 08:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- If you actually view the Lateline video, you'll see it's from the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corp.). The poster says they have complied with copyright laws. Why do you think they are lying? Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- Not sure what you are talking about, I don't see any reference to an ABC video. If you mean the profile of newsupload2010, there is no proof that they actually have any right to anything. if you had linked to the actual news organization website, you would have something to stand on in terms of not violating copyright, but you didn't.--Terrillja talk 08:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- The hooding line was discussed, not the relevance of Bethune's arrest. There is a section about his detention and arrest, therefore is seems logical that the details of his detention and arrest are relevant. WHICH reference is a copyright violation? All four of the references you deleted? Do you have any proof of this? Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Re: PD-textlogo
The arrangement of the graphical elements (one of which is a spiral) involves significant creative input. The fact that it's all circles and arcs doesn't mean that the elements can't be assembled creatively. Powers T 16:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Oh please. Putting one circle on top of another circle does not qualify it as a copyrightable creation. Not to invoke WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but go through Category:Public_domain_images_ineligible_for_copyright and you can find plenty of logos where one color is used over another to create an effect. They do not meet the threshold of originality. --Terrillja talk 16:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)