Template talk:Raëlism

My name is charles Luther King call me when you get home — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luther Charles (talk • contribs) 16:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This page needs a clean up

This page is full of extraordinary claims about Rael having actually met aliens. The language needs to be modified so as to reflect the fact that these are extraordinary claims that have not been verified and that are probably not true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.127.64.224 (talk) 20:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non free logo in template space?

The subject of using a not-completely-free image outside of article space (i.e. templates) has come up previously Template_talk:ScientologySeries/Archive_2#Logo_removal. I believe that it was found that under current Wiki rules, fair use only applies to use in actual articles and not templates. I'd be interested to know if there's anything authoritative on the subject. AndroidCat 18:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's true, the logo shouldn't be in the template. It's just right as a representation for the religion, though. <sigh> The new composite image, created by user:Kmarinas86 has to go as well, since it's made of copyrighted images, and is therefore not a legal self-made image. Lexicon (talk) 00:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why should people copyright things they don't make money off of? If it was an actual product, I would understand it being copyrighted. But this is just ridiculous. The true meaning of copyright has been forgotten. If anything, it should be a trademark, not a copyright.Kmarinas86 03:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain if they really meant copyright or a trademarked symbol, but that's the way it came down. (As I said, I'd be interested to know if there's a policy or guideline explaining the actual rules.) Apparently a photograph of a Scientology building with their cross on it couldn't be used either. I'm not even sure that if CoS said "fine, use it!" could it be used in a template since the trademark is still attached. (But it's fine as fair use in an actual article...) The legalities get very complex especially when other sites re-publish or translate the content from Wikipedia. In the end, someone's picture of an e-meter was the best non-trademarked compromise for the template. (I wish the idiot Hagerbot would give even 30 seconds to sign after posting. This really is annoying.) AndroidCat 04:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Apparently you can opt out from the bot. So I did. AndroidCat 04:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Adoption of former logo as per their website [[1]]Cplbeaudoin 22:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made the background transparent.Kmarinas86 00:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IF RAELIANS DO BELIEVE IN PEACE AND HUMANITY, HOW COME THEY STILL BELIEVE IN PUNISHMENT? ha ha ha you screwed up morons... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.170.252.1 (talk) 20:57, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New logo

I took it upon myself to update the template with their new logo in the primary interest of accuracy. Integrating a swastika and Star of David seems both funny and disturbing at the same time, which is why I drew this. Anynobody 00:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed File:Adam, Eve, and Elohim (Raëlism).gif since it does not appear to represent Raëlism. My edit was reverted. It is not imperative that the template has a logo. It should be removed. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of all people, I do not think you are one who knows what picture would represent Raëlism.Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 10:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oral tradition of Raelians claims that Adam and Eve were black. So the concept of the picture is not a contrived hack by some third-party casual, juvenile interpreter of Raelian beliefs. See http://www.raelafrica.org/news.php?extend.69Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 10:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will ignore the tone of your comment and focus on reasoned discourse. Since it seems we cannot use any official Raëlism logo we need to resort to something that is in the public domain and represents Raëlism in a recognisable manner. Alternatively, we could dispense with the image totally. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 05:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]