Contents

Talk:Conflict archaeology

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Archaeology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Military history: Technology This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met Associated task forces: /  Military science, technology, and theory task force

External link[edit]

Rfebris states that the link is to a document that violates copyright. Roxy the dog says "Copyright holder has no rights over weblinks", but per WP:LINKVIO it is against policy to link to pages that violate copyright. In any case, a single paper on one narrow example of conflict archaeology isn't a great loss to an article on the disciple as a whole. Removing. ascorbic (talk) 07:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid your interpretation of WP:LINKVIO doesn't apply here. Rfebris DID NOT state that the document violates copyright, and in fact the document does not violate copyright. As I have already stated a copyright holder has no control or rights over weblinks, and in this case copyright probably belongs to the University that commissioned the work. I will therefore restore the deleted content. (Perhaps a case could be made to remove the link via WP:UNDUE ascorbic, but I suggest the content of the link is central to the subject of the article) -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 09:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author and I have the copyright in this work, not the University. I have not given permission for me work to be used in this manner as I reserve the right to be published elsewhere. It needs to be taken down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rfebris (talk • contribs) 10:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting here after the author of the dissertation emailed OTRS (Ticket#2014100110008981). This link violates the external links policy on several levels: firstly, since we have reason to believe that the site is hosting the content illegally, we shoudl not link to it per WP:ELNEVER, and secondly, a dissertation that has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal is considered unverifiable research, and therefore fails point 2 of WP:ELNO. I am re-removing the link, Roxy, kindly do not put it back again. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is a pity that both the author and the OTRS volunteer misunderstand the nature of copyright. However, if the dissertation is considered unverifiable, I hope nobody tells the uni, as they might give the paper a bad grade. I sincerely hope not. Both of you should remember that a copyright holder does not control what links to said copyright work on the internet. This encyclopaedia would be in terrible trouble if they did - think about it. Point 2 of wp:elno doesn't say what you say it says either, but I accept that this dissertation may be being hosted illegally (wp:elnever) on the Toblerone Trail website and so I wont be replacing the link in the article. BTW, there are a number of links to the .pdf out there on teh internetz that you may wish to track down. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 13:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Roxy the dog: Apparently it has now been legitimately published at [1] - the author has no problem with this link being added instead, if you wish. By the way, I think you may be right about my reading of ELNO#2, so please disregard that as a reason for removal. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]