Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:04, 4 August 2008

• If you have copied text to which you own the copyright: Please read the guide to donating your own copyrighted material to Misplaced Pages. Note that, in addition to copyright requirements, the article must still comply with notability guidelines, advertising prohibition and avoid conflicts of interest.

• If you have been given permission to reuse someone else's text: Please read the guide to requesting and formalizing permission to use copyrighted works on Misplaced Pages. As above, the article must still comply with notability guidelines, advertising prohibition and avoid conflicts of interest.

• If you were attempting to rename an article or create a disambiguation page: Compliance with the GFDL requires that the article be actually moved rather than copied with cut-and-paste to preserve editing history. Please tag the new copy with {{db-move}} and an administrator will be able to assist you.

• If the original source was itself a copy of Misplaced Pages text: Reusing the text is probably okay, but make sure you link back to the original article to comply with the GFDL. If the site CSBot found is a Misplaced Pages mirror, you may want to notify me so I can add it to the list for the future.

• If the original source is in the public domain: Reusing the text is okay, but you almost certainly want to attribute it with an appropriate template (such as {{DANFS}} or {{1911}}); this will cause CSBot to leave the article alone.

• If you did attribute it with an appropriate template, but it was still flagged as a copyvio, then it's probable the bot does not know the template you have used. You might want to tell me on this page so I can add it to the list.

Otherwise, remember that text found on other web pages is copyrighted by default. Unless there is an explicit permission on the page (or site) allowing reuse without conditions (or under the GFDL) you can not use that text in a Misplaced Pages article!

Thank you!

((older cruft/undated messages moved to User talk:Coren/old stuff))

Inquiry of Misconduct

Moffat mountain rescue

The bot has picked up a submission as matching that of the history on Moffat MRT website at www.moffatmrt.org.uk. I am the team secretary and administrator of that website and give permission to use the information provided. I can also be contacted on secretary@moffatmrt.org.uk.

Can you authorise its use please?

Thanks

Moffat mountain rescue

The bot has picked up a submission as matching that of the history on Moffat MRT website at www.moffatmrt.org.uk. I am the team secretary and administrator of that website and give permission to use the information provided. I can also be contacted on secretary@moffatmrt.org.uk.

Can you authorise its use please?

Thanks

Robert

MiszaBot III (talk) 13:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)2/8/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torwood (talk • contribs) 19:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Not a false positive, but....

Your bot caught me in the middle of splitting out some content from an overly long article (Observer effect into a separate article (Observer effect (physics). I'm about to resolve it, will remove the tag. Good to know there's a bot out there looking for stuff like this! Steve Carlson 06:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Howell Station

As designated, I took the text from the National Register of Historic Places,a nd is therefore in the public domain. Bwjsmartdude (talk) 21:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Premature rejection.

I was supposed to have ten days.--King Bedford I 00:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, RFAR remain open for up to ten days; but it is usual to remove them soon when they become mathematically impossible to be accepted. — Coren  12:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Three of them changed their votes during the process. If two of them refound their courage, and then another arbitrator who had not voted chose to accept, then I'd have it.--King Bedford I 12:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Look, that wasn't going to happen. Some of the original support the case had was because the arbs misunderstood Jimbo's comment to mean that they were compelled to take the case, which they were not. If you feel the case was rejected when it should not have been, then I would recommend making your case by email to arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. — Coren  13:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

So, in other words, it was a marsupial tribunal? Understood. Arbitrary committee indeed.--King Bedford I 18:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Martinphi-ScienceApologist

I've been away for the better part of a week so please forgive me for this late question. I received a notice on my talkpage regarding this old case from you on July 28. I'm not sure why. I glanced at it, and it doesn't appear different to me. Perhaps it is and I missed it. Could you let me know why you notified me? Thank you, Antelan 17:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)