Talk:Melchizedek Bible
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
OK, Dini, why do you have to remove the part that isn't in question of being a copyright violation?Johnski 04:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- If you refer to [1] it's becuase whe na copyvio is found , the text in question is to be removed. That's why. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 04:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- It's a copyvio since it's taken from amazon website. So such text cannot go. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 04:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- I understand that the amazon part might not be allowed to go there, but if no one tries to put it back why is it an issue?Johnski 04:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- You kept on putting it back. However I deleted the entry because criteria G4 at Criteria for Speedy Deletions -- (☺drini♫|☎) 04:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- Drini, I never put back the part from amazon that I'm aware of, if I did it wasn't intentional. I think the confusion might be from the fact that Amazon may be quoting the preface of the Melchizedek bible for the part I left there, and the link there ( I didn't put it there, someone else did) said that melchizedek.com gives permission to Wikipedia to quote from the Melchizedek Bible.
- However , since the text was taken from amazon, and since amazozn page says "Conditions of Use | Privacy Notice © 1996-2005, Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates" it's copyvio -- (☺drini♫|☎) 05:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- I like the new version :) you can expand it if you want, but with your own words, not copying or slightñly modification the other text -- (☺drini♫|☎) 05:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- Drini, I like your speed in responding. So if I copyright a book and someone else copies from my book to try to sell it, they now have their own copyright over my words? So I couldn't give someone else permission to use my words? That's what it seems like the owners of the Melchizedek Bible are running into, as they have given permission to copy their text here at wikipedia, but since someone else already copied their text no one else can? Also, I searched melchizedek.com and couldn't find that link that you deleted that showed Melchizedek.com gave permission to use their text, so could you post it here, please?
- I don't know which link you talk to (I checked a few versions and didn't see anything). However, don't you think wikibooks would be a better suited project for hosting MB? -- (☺drini♫|☎) 05:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- Drini, you are so fast, you helped me with the editing before I could get over here to ask for help!!
- Drini, btw, thanks for your help and letting me know about wikibooks, which I'll check out. Can you help me with understanding why you agree with those that only show the negative stuff about Melchizedek, as I noticed you joined in reverting away from the versions that I have tried to make fair, accurate and balanced.Johnski 06:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- Let's say that I consider differnetly MB than DM. I'm not fan of those who engage on editwars, but as this article is handled nicely, I help with it -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:05, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- Drini, btw, thanks for your help and letting me know about wikibooks, which I'll check out. Can you help me with understanding why you agree with those that only show the negative stuff about Melchizedek, as I noticed you joined in reverting away from the versions that I have tried to make fair, accurate and balanced.Johnski 06:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- Drini, I like your speed in responding. So if I copyright a book and someone else copies from my book to try to sell it, they now have their own copyright over my words? So I couldn't give someone else permission to use my words? That's what it seems like the owners of the Melchizedek Bible are running into, as they have given permission to copy their text here at wikipedia, but since someone else already copied their text no one else can? Also, I searched melchizedek.com and couldn't find that link that you deleted that showed Melchizedek.com gave permission to use their text, so could you post it here, please?
- Drini, I never put back the part from amazon that I'm aware of, if I did it wasn't intentional. I think the confusion might be from the fact that Amazon may be quoting the preface of the Melchizedek bible for the part I left there, and the link there ( I didn't put it there, someone else did) said that melchizedek.com gives permission to Wikipedia to quote from the Melchizedek Bible.
- You kept on putting it back. However I deleted the entry because criteria G4 at Criteria for Speedy Deletions -- (☺drini♫|☎) 04:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- I understand that the amazon part might not be allowed to go there, but if no one tries to put it back why is it an issue?Johnski 04:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)