Talk:Greetings from Earth (Book)/Archive 1 - Revision history

Serenity at 18:03, 3 January 2007

2007-01-03T18:03:15Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:03, 3 January 2007
Line 4:		Line 4:
	:As you have probably discovered, these entries are likely copied from another website and are copyright violations that will likely be pulled. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 11:55, 3 January 2007 (CST)		:As you have probably discovered, these entries are likely copied from another website and are copyright violations that will likely be pulled. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 11:55, 3 January 2007 (CST)
	::There'd be nothing wrong with posting a link to the reviews under an "external links" section, but any of the text content needs to be creative commons compatible. If there's not a resolution to the copyright issues by the end of today we'll revert all the questionable contributions. --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 11:58, 3 January 2007 (CST)		::There'd be nothing wrong with posting a link to the reviews under an "external links" section, but any of the text content needs to be creative commons compatible. If there's not a resolution to the copyright issues by the end of today we'll revert all the questionable contributions. --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 11:58, 3 January 2007 (CST)

			::Yeah, I noticed the link to that review website in the other articles. Here, it's missing though, so I initially thought that it was his own writing. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 12:03, 3 January 2007 (CST)

Steelviper: + concur

2007-01-03T17:58:58Z

+ concur

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:58, 3 January 2007
Line 3:		Line 3:
	The recent addition is pretty much a review and thus probably not acceptable for a Wiki. But I'm not sure if it should be edited to tone down the opinionating or deleted altogether. The summary though would be alright with some editing --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 09:29, 3 January 2007 (CST)		The recent addition is pretty much a review and thus probably not acceptable for a Wiki. But I'm not sure if it should be edited to tone down the opinionating or deleted altogether. The summary though would be alright with some editing --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 09:29, 3 January 2007 (CST)
	:As you have probably discovered, these entries are likely copied from another website and are copyright violations that will likely be pulled. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 11:55, 3 January 2007 (CST)		:As you have probably discovered, these entries are likely copied from another website and are copyright violations that will likely be pulled. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 11:55, 3 January 2007 (CST)
			::There'd be nothing wrong with posting a link to the reviews under an "external links" section, but any of the text content needs to be creative commons compatible. If there's not a resolution to the copyright issues by the end of today we'll revert all the questionable contributions. --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 11:58, 3 January 2007 (CST)

Spencerian: /* POV */

2007-01-03T17:55:51Z

POV

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:55, 3 January 2007
Line 2:		Line 2:

	The recent addition is pretty much a review and thus probably not acceptable for a Wiki. But I'm not sure if it should be edited to tone down the opinionating or deleted altogether. The summary though would be alright with some editing --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 09:29, 3 January 2007 (CST)		The recent addition is pretty much a review and thus probably not acceptable for a Wiki. But I'm not sure if it should be edited to tone down the opinionating or deleted altogether. The summary though would be alright with some editing --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 09:29, 3 January 2007 (CST)
			:As you have probably discovered, these entries are likely copied from another website and are copyright violations that will likely be pulled. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 11:55, 3 January 2007 (CST)

Serenity: Recent contribution is very POV

2007-01-03T15:29:43Z

Recent contribution is very POV

New page

== POV ==

The recent addition is pretty much a review and thus probably not acceptable for a Wiki. But I'm not sure if it should be edited to tone down the opinionating or deleted altogether. The summary though would be alright with some editing --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 09:29, 3 January 2007 (CST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:03, 3 January 2007
Line 4:		Line 4:
	:As you have probably discovered, these entries are likely copied from another website and are copyright violations that will likely be pulled. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 11:55, 3 January 2007 (CST)		:As you have probably discovered, these entries are likely copied from another website and are copyright violations that will likely be pulled. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 11:55, 3 January 2007 (CST)
	::There'd be nothing wrong with posting a link to the reviews under an "external links" section, but any of the text content needs to be creative commons compatible. If there's not a resolution to the copyright issues by the end of today we'll revert all the questionable contributions. --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 11:58, 3 January 2007 (CST)		::There'd be nothing wrong with posting a link to the reviews under an "external links" section, but any of the text content needs to be creative commons compatible. If there's not a resolution to the copyright issues by the end of today we'll revert all the questionable contributions. --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 11:58, 3 January 2007 (CST)

			::Yeah, I noticed the link to that review website in the other articles. Here, it's missing though, so I initially thought that it was his own writing. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 12:03, 3 January 2007 (CST)