Talk:Bayes' theorem/Archive 8
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Bayes' theorem. 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. |
| Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Are there copyright violations in the image being discussed now?
If there are copyright violations, please let me know which images and I will pursue that. Please keep the discussion in this section to only about copyvio. Constant314 (talk) 19:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- There was talk of this image, the first in the "Interpretations" section, being copyright infringement. However, the developers of the video games in question have IP guidelines which delineate what they do and do not allow in terms of the usage of their IP. They seem to allow usage of their IP for non-commercial and/or educational purposes. Furthermore, because of the nature of the image (Original work imitating a small amount of the IP primarily for nonprofit educational purposes), fair use likely applies to the image. Baldemoto (talk) 20:37, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- I've addressed this in Talk:Bayes'_theorem#Response_from_the_illustrator. Cheers, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 00:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, you have, but I think it would be useful to add the rational to the image page on Wikimedia. Constant314 (talk) 16:36, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- I've addressed this in Talk:Bayes'_theorem#Response_from_the_illustrator. Cheers, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 00:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Protected edit request on 4 October 2022
 | This edit request to Bayes' theorem has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I request restoral of the previous version of this page for the following reasons:
- The image in the previous version has an involved editor who has been making modifications in response to suggestions and requests for improvements made on this talk page. He is addressing the complaints.
- The consensus appears to be going that way.
- The last change which is now protected was made by editor that is now blocked.
- The previous version was the stable version before the present edit squabble (I don't think it reached the war level).
By no means do I wish to imply that the issue is resolved, but rather that the previous version is a better version to be presented to the public while the issue is being resolved. Constant314 (talk) 16:29, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- Consensus is not yet reached, so we should wait for that instead of hastily going that way. 0xDeadbeef 00:02, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Not done for now: We should wait for the closer of the RfC to make this edit. 0xDeadbeef→∞ 11:35, 9 October 2022 (UTC)