Talk:Ottoman and Turkish Studies Association: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
link problem |
its gonna die! |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
:Not necessarily; so far I haven't seen any evidence it passes [[WP:ORG]]. [[User:Ironholds|Ironholds]] ([[User talk:Ironholds|talk]]) 16:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC) |
:Not necessarily; so far I haven't seen any evidence it passes [[WP:ORG]]. [[User:Ironholds|Ironholds]] ([[User talk:Ironholds|talk]]) 16:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC) |
||
::The problem is that in the article about [[Roderic H. Davison]] there is a link to this organisation. So to make the link work we need this article here. --[[User:Tubesship|Tubesship]] ([[User talk:Tubesship|talk]]) 16:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC) |
::The problem is that in the article about [[Roderic H. Davison]] there is a link to this organisation. So to make the link work we need this article here. You know what I mean? The link would be dead! --[[User:Tubesship|Tubesship]] ([[User talk:Tubesship|talk]]) 16:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 16:24, 29 April 2009
Dear Bot, I am not familiar with copyright things. Do you think this goes to non-profit organisations, too? If yes, feel free for deletion. --Tubesship (talk) 15:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not a bot. Copyright applies to non-profit organisations, yes. Ironholds (talk) 15:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, so I guess I have to ask this organisation if it is ok for them to copy and paste their infos here on Wikipedia, right? Will the bot wait for the answer? How speedy is a speedy deletion? --Tubesship (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Very speedy; a matter of hours. They are unlikely to let you, and even if they did we'd need direct confirmation from them. Ironholds (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- No problem, the deletion is not a loss as it was only copy and paste - and of course I would forward the confirmation and not keep it as a secret. --Tubesship (talk) 15:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)BTW: Why do you think it is unlikely to get a permission from them?
- Because they made the content, and allowing its use on Wikipedia involves waiving several legal rights. Ironholds (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- That would be a pity. But nevertheless feel encouraged to create an article about this organisation. I think it is necessary, don't you? --Tubesship (talk) 16:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Because they made the content, and allowing its use on Wikipedia involves waiving several legal rights. Ironholds (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- No problem, the deletion is not a loss as it was only copy and paste - and of course I would forward the confirmation and not keep it as a secret. --Tubesship (talk) 15:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)BTW: Why do you think it is unlikely to get a permission from them?
- Very speedy; a matter of hours. They are unlikely to let you, and even if they did we'd need direct confirmation from them. Ironholds (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, so I guess I have to ask this organisation if it is ok for them to copy and paste their infos here on Wikipedia, right? Will the bot wait for the answer? How speedy is a speedy deletion? --Tubesship (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Not necessarily; so far I haven't seen any evidence it passes WP:ORG. Ironholds (talk) 16:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- The problem is that in the article about Roderic H. Davison there is a link to this organisation. So to make the link work we need this article here. You know what I mean? The link would be dead! --Tubesship (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)