Spencerian (talk | contribs) |
No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| 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) | |||
::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) | |||
Latest revision as of 18:03, 3 January 2007
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 --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. --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. --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. --Serenity 12:03, 3 January 2007 (CST)