File talk:Superpowerbldg.jpg

Isn't that interesting ? Andreas Heldal-Lund apparently owned the photo and so, got to make a statement. He said: Critics of the Church of Scientology (CoS), including Wikipedia .. are free to use images and text on this site (xenu.net site). Isn't that interesting. Andreas Heldal-Lund gives Wikipedia permission to use the photo because Wikipedia is a critic of the Church of Scientology, according to Andreas Heldal-Lund. Terryeo 09:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo omitted the phrase, "which is NPOV," after "Wikipedia". I object to his published falsification of the actual statement and his libelling of Wikipedia. --Fahrenheit451 14:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Not at all Terryeo. Certain editors started raising the strawman argument that because Wikipedia isn't a critical site, any use of material from xenu.net would be a copyright violation. I could see where that was going and decided to cut the Gordian Knot off at the pass. I emailed Andreas (at the contact address on the site), and asked if he could ammend the text to specifically allow Wiki since it wasn't a critical site, and he graciously did, thus ending anything more than your current baseless muttering and whinging. I see that you are up to your old tricks of altering quotations to make them come out the way you want them to. Why did you cut the key part of that quotation "including Wikipedia which is NPOV" [emp-added]? No doubt you will continue misapply the including to mean that he is including Wiki as a critcal POV site rather than that he is clearly including Wiki in his permission. However, if you can think of a better wording, why don't you email him and suggest the change? How about "Critics of the Church of Scientology (CoS), and Wikipedia (WP:Is Not Critical), are free to use images and text on this site"?

Note that blowing possibly my second ever email to Andreas into proof of a sinister cabal of editors and supressives plotting to twist Wiki with dastardly scheming will seen as uncivil by me. Be told. AndroidCat 14:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I did not claim that you ever sent any email and I did not claim that you created that statement and I did not claim that Wikipedia is a critic of Scientology. Be Told! Terryeo 03:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, deliberately misrepresenting that quotation the way you did is disgraceful. You take two steps forward in establishing credibility, then ten steps back with outright lies like this one. BTfromLA 20:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I gave up on Terryeo's credibility some time ago. My advice - start off with low expectations, that way you won't be disappointed when something like this happens. :-) -- ChrisO 22:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Your statement, User:ChrisO is both unnecessary and of bad faith. That I tell you both of those are true is not a personal attack, but a recognition of the situation.Terryeo 03:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The statement states: "Wikipedia is a critic of the Church of Scientology". It adds a qualifier immediately after the mention of "wikipedia" but that qualifier does not disinclude Wikipedia from being a Critic of the Church of Scienotlogy. Had the statement said;

• Critics of the Church of Scientology (CoS), including Wikipedia (which is not a critic and is NPOV) then your arguement would be valid. The statement does not say that. The statement does include Wikipedia as a critic as it is stated.

I will use a slightly different qualifer and make the same statement. Critics of the Church of Scientology (CoS), including Wikipedia which is extensive may use these. Here's another; Critics of the Church of Scientology (CoS), including Wikipedia which is under development, may use these. Here's another; Critics of the Church of Scientology (CoS), including Wikipedia which is painted brown may use these. Do you get it? The statement includes Wikipedia as a critic of the Church of Scientology. The qualifier "which is NPOV" in no way effects the inclusion of Wikipedia from the weight of his statment which includes Wikipedia as a critic of the Church of Scientology. Terryeo 23:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

You might want to consider the rather obvious factor that Heldal-Lund is not a native speaker of English... -- ChrisO 23:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I might want to? Heldal-Lund first went public with his criticsms of Christianity. He has demonstrated that he is solidly and vehemently against freedom of religion. His bigotry is not confined to criticsms of a single religion. Whether he is a straw puppet or a weak beanbrain, his suppressiveness doesn't tolerate my religion and I don't intend to tolerate his ignorance. Your appeal, User:ChrisO, should not be to me, nor to any editor who posts here, but to the public. You should ask the public to forgive his ignorance, it is the public's urge toward religion which he is attempting to quash, criticize and suppress. Terryeo 07:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I made the same point on Terryeo's user page, where I also suggested that he email Heldel-Lund, alerting him to this point of contention and asking for clarification as to his intended meaning. "Original Research," I know, but it would put a quick end to this nonsense. (Well, this particular episode.) BTfromLA 23:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

BtfromLA, you frequently attempt to make an ally of me. Let me assure you, Wikipedia is not well written. It does not present some subjects well. As an example, the Study Tech article presently uses personal website as a secondary source of information within the article. Cites to reposited newsgroups have been used. Cites to reposited google group chat has been used. Wikipedia has a goal. It hopes to become a resource of repute. To do so, standards are spelled out in Policies and Guidelines. Responsible editing would not only follow those standards, but would attempt to improve them rather than attempt to water them down. That "npov" qualifier does not disambiguate his statement; "critics may use my work" from "Wikipedia is a critic"". Terryeo 23:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

And your comments about Heldal-Lund's copyright notice help Wikipedia... how?BTfromLA 23:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I raise the issue, "Wikipedia attempts to become a reputable source of information" because our founder says so and gives some examples at WP:NPOV. The Scientology series of articles are authored by individuals who have have studied nor understood their subjects. Wikipedia allows and even encourages such edits. And, because Wikipedia understands that editors are not expert in the edited subject, Wikipedia provides policy and guidelines which can be followed to produce good, useful - the - public (the broad, general public) articles :) Are we all in agreement about these basic datums?  :) Terryeo 00:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

No. BTfromLA 08:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

No? Why not? Terryeo 15:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't blame Heldal-Lund for the "including". As the author of the added text in that statement, I can say that Terryeo is completely wrong. [1] Checking my records, Andreas used exactly the suggested sample text that I emailed. That the text says "including" rather than "as well as" was due to bad typing on my part. Why doesn't Terryeo email him and suggest the correction of my mistake? He won't bite. AndroidCat 23:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

There it is again, at User:AndroidCat's link: [2] (Strictly speaking, Wiki is NPOV rather than critical but I doubt that's a problem.) He thinks that "NPOV" = (or almost equals) "critical" and says so. Terryeo 06:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

No I don't. Please stop lying about what I say and think. It's extremely uncivil of you. AndroidCat 12:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You don't think that "NPOV" = (or almost equals) "Critical"? Terryeo 15:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Shall I type louder this time? What part of "No I don't" are you having problems with? AndroidCat 21:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

My statement, which you see above, addresses the statement which appears in the article. AndroidCat's statement suggests that I not address the statement which appears in the article. I see what you mean. And you say, you suggested that exact text ? Terryeo 00:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The exact text that I suggested was "including Wikipedia which is NPOV". I'd intended to suggest "as well as Wikipedia which is NPOV" but mistyped. As well, I suggested "Alternately, if you have a Wiki id, upload the image yourself and note that you are the copyright holder." So much for sinister plots and psychoanalysis of Andreas' motives enk? AndroidCat 01:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, look at that! AndroidCat admits it: "I suggested... sinister plots." I knew it all along. Happy Oh Ohs. BTfromLA 01:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

User:AndroidCat, you seem to be claiming that you are the person who wrote that Wikipedia is a critic of the Church of Scientology (though NPOV) ? Terryeo 03:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I never wrote any such thing. AndroidCat 03:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Just above: The exact text that I suggested was "including Wikipedia which is NPOV". from just above, AndroidCat 01:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

stated and signedTerryeo 15:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You managed to quote something without altering it, well done. Now you just need to work on the 2 + 2 = aardvark part. AndroidCat 21:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Apparently you do not understand, that statement classifies Wikipedia as a critic of the Church of Scientology. That statement is completely untrue. Terryeo 18:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The actual issue which I have with the statement is that Andreas Heldal-Lund has granted Wikipedia use of the image based on the single criteria that Wikipedia is a "critic of Scientology". I know that to be untrue. Terryeo 21:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Then email Andreas and suggest a change in the wording like I did. Would my intended "as well as Wikipedia which is NPOV" work for you? AndroidCat 01:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

What would work for me is fulfillment of the intent which WP:NPOV states. To suck in contributions which are based on Wikipedia being seen as a "critic" of ANY institution flies directly into the face of Wikipedia's stated purpose. I am of course convinced that Xenu.net will never do any activity which does not, in some way, suppress, criticize, belittle, or squash freedom of religion. Terryeo 09:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Actual discussion about the image

Terryeo is right, the image can't be used on Wikipedia under the present conditions. Also the copyright holder has not irrevocably released all rights to the image, so a wrong licensing template was used. "Fair use" might be possible, but personally I wouldn't do that because of the implication that Wikipedia is included in the CoS critics. Not the kind of publicity Wikipedia needs. If Andreas Heldal-Lund had written something in the vein of "Critics of the Church of Scientology (CoS) and Wikipedia are free to use images and text on this site that are made by me if proper credits are given" the matter would be different. But even then there would be a problem: Wikipedia will not transmit these conditions of the copyright holder to future users of Wikipedia's content. So Andreas Heldal-Lund would either have to agree to a free license ("Any free license must allow modification, redistribution, and use for any purpose, including commercial purposes and also of modified versions" — Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission#For images), or the usual Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy has to be applied. IMHO it would be best to remove the image as long as the fulfillment of these conditions has not materialised. --Francis Schonken 21:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank god someone can read the written word and understand what it says ! Terryeo 22:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Francis Schonken raises two issues:

1. Andreas Heldal-Lund's grouping of Wikipedia with critics of Scientology. I disagree that there is a basis for this claim--as the discussion above makes clear, the awkward language of his release is the result of pasting in a phrase that AndroidCat suggested specifically in order to clarify that he was willing to grant use to Wikipedia, a neutral site. If there is any doubt about Heldal-Lund's assessment of Wikipedia, look at his web site, where he explicity singels out Wikipedia as a site with a neutral point of view. [3] And while Terryeo likes to point out that Xenu.net includes links to Wikipedia on the front page, it should be noted that Heldal-Lund also links (and always has) to Scientology's own home page on his front page, as well a variety of press sources that have discussed Scientology, currently including MSNBC, Der Spiegel andRolling Stone.

That's all very well possible, and I'd like Wikipedia was in the position to use the image, but currently no. I can only read the sentence like Heldal-Lund put it on his website, and saying that it should be read as something else than it actually says, is Original Research, and simply not enough. You can always ask Heldal-Lund to write something else, but then "allowing modification, redistribution, and use for any purpose, including commercial purposes and also of modified versions" would always need to be part of these conditions, explicitly or implicitly, if you want to call it a "free license". --Francis Schonken 22:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think it is Original Research when I say that wasn't the intent. (Unlike the selective bolding which you added to the text on the possible copyvio page.) AndroidCat 02:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

2. The second issue is that any conditions at all are placed on use of the image. I don't know what the policy is with regard to this--must all images be released unconditionally? If, for example, someone granted use of their photos for non-profit applications, but required payment otherwise, would that disqualify their photos from being used on wikipedia? BTfromLA 21:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Re. "must all images be released unconditionally?" – no, but the only alternatives are "copyright-free" or "free license" or "fair use". "Fair use" is probably not a very good solution in this case.

"If, for example, someone granted use of their photos for non-profit applications, but required payment otherwise, would that disqualify their photos from being used on wikipedia?" – definitely (unless for exceptions in the sense of "fair use" or "double license"): commercial use of Wikipedia's content by third parties should not be excluded. --Francis Schonken 22:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This is due to Wikipedia's gradual but large shift in policy towards copyright. A number of images on Wiki now that were added months ago would no longer be acceptable without asking for broader permissions from the creators. I (or anyone) can ask Andreas Heldal-Lund if he will agree to a broader release, but due to misuse of images by a certain organization in the past, that isn't certain. AndroidCat 02:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict--I wrote this before seeing AndroidCat's note above) Thanks for the clarification, Francis. While I continue to believe that the stuff about Wikipedia being a critic is disruptive nonsense, a look at the relevant policy pages does indeed indicate that Andreas' release isn't "free" enough to meet the Wikipedia guidelines. I'd suggest that another editor or two take a look at WP:ICT, particularly the bit about "free licenses"--as I read it, Andreas would need to make the image available for all uses and all users, just as Francis suggests above, before it qualifies for use here (and I agree that "fair use" really doesn't apply in this context). BTfromLA 02:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You continue to believe Andreas' statement does not state the Wikipedia is a critic of the Church of Scientology? Read the written word ! It states his permission is based on Wikipedia being a critic of the Church of Scientology. Terryeo 10:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Which means that it isn't a copyright violation, just not broad enough permission for Wiki to use for unencumbered distribution to other sites which mirror, translate or repackage Wiki's material, which wouldn't be covered under Andreas' (note spelling) current permission. It might be an idea to start looking for another image of the Super Power building which can be used. AndroidCat 04:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Oops! I've corrected my spelling error re: Andreas. Apologies for any confusion caused by my mistake. BTfromLA 05:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• The best Wikipedia-style solution would be that some editor living near to wherever that building stands, or accidently passing by, takes a picture of it, and uploads it to Wikipedia under GFDL.
• A "not broad enough permission for Wiki to use for enencumbered distribution to other sites which mirror (etc)" is an instance of a copyright violation. --Francis Schonken 07:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Not so. It's merely an unfree image - no violation of copyright has occurred, as the owner of the image has given permission for Wikipedia to use it. I've changed the image copyright tag accordingly. I agree with your solution - doesn't Jimmy Wales live near Clearwater? :-) -- ChrisO 11:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Uploading an "unfree image" to Wikipedia, and then declare it a "free image" on the image page is a copyvio. Or at least a "copyright problem". Yes, I could've been more precise in the wording. I'm perfectly happy with it being handled at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images#August 11 now. Note however that the instructions of that page indicate that an image should be listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems if its source is known and it cannot be used under a free license or fair use doctrine. But I left a link there ([4]), so I suppose that's OK too.

Oh, and yes, Jimbo has a digicam phone, which he prefers to use outdoors for pictures [5] ;) – and, afaik, he promotes that unfree images should be replaced by free alternatives produced by Wikipedians. --Francis Schonken 12:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Get some pictures of the security people who wander over to say hello while you're there. :) AndroidCat 11:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

<dusts hands> Well, that handles that, but it is due to several people's attentions and efforts. Glad it worked ! Terryeo 07:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)