User talk:CouldBeeWorse

Welcome!
Hello and

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

• Please respect others' copyrights; do not copy and paste the contents from webpages directly.
• Please use a neutral point of view when editing articles; this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add unreasonable contents into any
  articles, such as: copyrighted text, advertisement messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Adding such unreasonable information or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism
  , and will result in your account being blocked.

Thank you for uploading

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. From Wikipedia:Image use policy Images which are listed as for non-commercial use only, by permission, or which restrict derivatives are unsuitable for Wikipedia and will be deleted on sight. This means that it is not possible for a copyright owner to give permission for just Wikipedia to use an image. Wikipedia is distributed under the GFDL, so all content and images must also be under some sort of free licensing. What you would need to do is get the copyright holder to release the image under the GFDL and state as much on their website, or Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission which needs to ::be confirmed and verified by wikipedia.

Finally, on a personal note. The abortion debate is a heated issue for sure. It seems inappropriate to me to have a partisan, pro-life source for allegedly 'medical' diagrams. It raises neutrality and POV issues. Finding a more neutral or more academic image source seems more appropriate. Thanks again.-Andrew c 23:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(1) The accuracy of these drawings has been affirmed in writing by prominent ob-gyn authorities, including Prof. Watson Bowes, co-editor of the Obstetricial and Gynecological Survey -- see his letter here:

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/Bowes_letter_PBA_illustration.pdf

(2) In 2003 the drawings were released for educational, non-commercial use by the original copyright holder. They have been utilized in numerous publications and I am aware of no credible challenges to their accuracy. They have been displayed on the floor of the House and the Senate during debates on the law upheld today by the Supreme Court. I hardly think that they are too strong for the Wikipedia audience.

(3) Although these drawings did not originate with National Right to Life, they are displayed on the NRLC website, and NRLC has released them for non-commerical, educational use. If the mere fact that NRLC displays them, as the more accurate available depictions of the disputed procedure, disqualifies them, then extensive further edits to the entire article will be required, because it is replete with citations to authorities that are every bit as "partisan" and POV as NRLC, beginning with the Alan Guttmacher Institute. CouldBeeWorse 23:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The GFDL Wikipedia uses allows derivatives to be sold commercially. Wikipedia derivatives are not restricted to educational use. A release for "educational, non-commercial" use does not satisfy Wikipedia's copyright requirements. Lyrl ^Talk _C 00:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[question deleted -- found the Wikipedia page with the answer.CouldBeeWorse 01:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]