Talk:Association of Old Crows

Updates

I have added a info box to the organization and edited some information. To the best of my knowledge, the AOC is NOT a not-for-profit organization (goal isn't to make a profit, but it might use profitable funds to improve itself), but is a non-profit organization as declared on its website AND by US gov't tax code. I also freely admit I'm a member and I do not take any ownership of this page and recognize pertinent conflicts of interest. I will acquiesce to any/all discussions regarding this and abstain from any !votes, though I retain the right to express my opinion on a subject.

It also seems to me that the current page is reminiscent of previous publications/literature and may be a copyvio (I'm not 100% sure). I will do my best to rephrase and properly attribute sources, but I request that, due to the limited available time I may need to fix this, I request that whole sections are not blanked just yet.

As always, I request that anyone who has any questions regarding my edits, please contact me on my talk page or on this page to discuss matters. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for your edits to the article. I did have to revert your edits, however, because they were a build-on of and thus inextricable from an earlier editor's edits, which I confirmed as the copyvio that you suspected. It is this page from AOC's site. I am, however, going to restore the infobox. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. I see no reason we can't use that information though and properly site it. I see no reason they shouldn't have been oversighted though...and, yes, there was a lot that could have been done. All I'm asking is for you to open it up so I can take that information, properly attribute/site/condense/use it, and put said information in the article in an appropriate format. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I would have pulled the copyvio information myself and worked on it, but had to stop to get on a plane. Wanted to be sure before pulling it. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

You cannot use infringing text as a base for new material. You will need to write it entirely in your own words. Otherwise, I have linked to the page where the infringing material came from. I know you're a good and well-established editor, since I've also encountered you at FFD and PUF, and so I know you know this. Feel free to use the AOC page as a source, use other sources, but it just can't be a source of sentences. Next time, if you suspect copyright infringement, revert first, and then add your new material.

Otherwise, as I stated on my talk page, Oversight was not performed on this page. Revision deletion was performed on this page under criterion RD1. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

That's the problem. Some of that WAS in my own words (and some of it was sourced). As for "using infringing text as a base for new material", yes you can. By definition, everything on WP came from somewhere else (or at least it was supposed to). Everything on WP is supposed to have "infringing text" (by which I assume you mean "copyrighted") as a basis for what is stated within WP. All I ask is that the previous versions be set up so they are viewable in the history section so I can pull what IS useful out for a better version. I'm a veteran editor and I won't put copyvio information in the current version.

As for oversight, this is merely an application of the same process. As stated on the RD page, "Criteria for redaction: Blatant copyright violations that can be redacted without removing attribution to non-infringing contributors. If redacting a revision would remove any contributor's attribution, this criterion can not be used. Best practices for copyrighted text removal can be found at Wikipedia:Copyright problems and should take precedence over this criterion."

I also take exception to "if you suspect copyright infringement, revert first, and then add your new material." That completely runs contrary to WP:AGF and is NOT documented as a "best practice", guideline, or rule. I would strongly discourage this technique.

In short, all I ask is that you make the previous versions available to LOOK at in order to pull what useful information is available from them. I won't put copyvio information back in. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Just give me 24 hours. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

You've asked me to confine my discussion to this page, however, you appear to be failing to respond to my requests. Again, I'm not asking to keep these revisions open, but I am simply asking for access in order to salvage what I can. If I can't salvage anything, then nothing is lost.

Furthermore, I don't think the "if it sounds like it might be plagiarism, delete it" is appropriate. Your thoughts? — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Virginia portal?

It would be nice to find a Strategic Air Command Electronic Warfare Officer's patch owith a crow firing lightening bolts from his claws, and to make mention of a fondness for Old Crow Bourbon whiskey. Ex-ECM-Pawyilee (talk) 14:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Association of Old Crows. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928144251/http://www.buffalostate.edu/physics/x757.xml to http://www.buffalostate.edu/physics/x757.xml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:20, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Links to Individual Chapters

At the bottom of the article are several links to individual chapters. A better, up to date, list is found directly on the AOC site. I added that link but left the individual links. I was hoping to get other opinions before I just delete them. TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 03:03, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

After no opinions in the past 2 weeks, I'm deleting those chapters listed at the bottom that are within the CONUS region. --TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 19:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)