User talk:Maldt: Difference between revisions
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
== March 2011 == |
== March 2011 == |
||
I don't agree with Steamroller Assault's assessment that this is inappropriate use of copyrighted material. The information contained in the rugmark.org.uk and other websites associated with the |
I don't <em>entirely</em> agree with Steamroller Assault's assessment that this is inappropriate use of copyrighted material. The information contained in the rugmark.org.uk and other websites associated with the program simply describe the work that this organization does and should be referenced in this article in order to give an accurate description of what it actually does. Perhaps someone can propose a summary or rephrasing of this information, but I imagine it would not be substantially different from what is described on the websites if the information is accurate. |
||
On a side note, I do agree with Steamroller's reversion of edits by 122.163.19.53 (noted as "undid unexplained removal of fully referenced information"). It's not clear why additional changes made by other editors after this were not reviewed/reverted, as they appear to be similar in nature to the unexplained information that Steamroller removed. <!-- Template:uw-copyright --> [[User:Gw-intl|Gw-intl]] ([[User talk:Gw-intl|talk]]) 11:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Latest revision as of 17:00, 23 March 2011
August 2010
[edit]
Your addition to Rugmark has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Steamroller Assault (talk) 02:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
March 2011
[edit]I don't entirely agree with Steamroller Assault's assessment that this is inappropriate use of copyrighted material. The information contained in the rugmark.org.uk and other websites associated with the program simply describe the work that this organization does and should be referenced in this article in order to give an accurate description of what it actually does. Perhaps someone can propose a summary or rephrasing of this information, but I imagine it would not be substantially different from what is described on the websites if the information is accurate.
On a side note, I do agree with Steamroller's reversion of edits by 122.163.19.53 (noted as "undid unexplained removal of fully referenced information"). It's not clear why additional changes made by other editors after this were not reviewed/reverted, as they appear to be similar in nature to the unexplained information that Steamroller removed. Gw-intl (talk) 11:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)