Talk:Faith in Place

Copyvio?
The prose text of this article seems to be confected—with some rewriting, but not enough, I think, to avoid copyright problems—from various pages of the organization's Web site. Cf. the following pages of that site with the specified sections of the article: —Deor (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Goals: ,
 * Staff:
 * Programs:, , ,
 * This has been addressed with the rewrite, they likely would have given permission if we wanted to keep any of it. -- Banj e  b oi   23:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

"They likely would have given permission" does not justify use: they need to have actually given permission. Also, be careful about presuming that you know what permission someone else would give when they haven't been asked, and bear in mind that "you can reproduce it in this article" is not enough: it would have to be "you can use it in this article, and you have our authority to give similar permission to anyone anywhere in the world to use it and to pass on such authority without limit". JamesBWatson (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Dial it down please. Did I suggest at all that we should violate copyvio policy? No. I expressed my opinion at the same time explaining that copyvio issues were now moot as the entire article has been rewritten. -- Banj e  b oi   12:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understood that that was what you were saying. However, you mentioned the likelihood that "they likely would have given permission" in a way that might have been read as meaning that that made the past use of the material OK. Even if you did not mean it that way, it could have been read that way, and, as misunderstandings of this kind do occur I thought I would point it out. Perhaps it was unnecessary to do so, but I certainly meant no offense. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No prob then, I could have been more clear. -- Banj e  b oi   05:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)