Talk:Royal Gibraltar Police

Copyright
This information is in the public domain, on the RGP website. There is no copyright notice attached to the article. Ecememl has become obsessed with me, as I have challenged his abuse of position in the Gibrlatar article at .es.


 * The copyright notice is attachet to the whole web site. It says © Government of Gibraltar. Unless you can show that UK government stuff is in the public domain (is it?), it's a copyright violation. --Ecemaml 15:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * In fact, a similar article with the same copyright violation was introduced in August (possibly by the same user, an anonymous from a Gibraltarian IP address) and deleted in October. --Ecemaml 09:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The article in question appears in RGP diaries, and has been reproduced widely in Gibraltar as part of the 175th Anniversary celebrations. While the website itself is copyrighted there is nothing on the article itself suggesting it is. The only reason you raise the point is because of your ridiculous obsession with Gibraltar, and me. http://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/judiciary/police_index.htm)
 * --Gibraltarian 09:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Obviously you don't understand anything about copyright. All the material present in Internet (everywhere in fact) is copyrighted unless noticed. Not in the opposite way. And this is not the case. --Ecemaml 12:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC) -

Ecemaml, not only are you acting as self-appointed dictator in .es, now your obsession is spilling over into here. If the author of the article in question wished to copyright it, he would have done so. This is not a copyright issue anyway, the issue here is your obsessive badgering of me. Get a life. You are now attempting to portray yourself as self-appointed expert in everything. You are not. PROVE your copyright allegations. And leave me alone. --Gibraltarian 14:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC) P.S. how come the 3rv rule doee not apply to Ecemaml?


 * 3RR has not yet been applied to anyone. You were doing the wrong thing by removing the copy-vio notice when it explicitly states not to do so. However, edit waring is not appropriate either.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 14:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Note this is merely an allegation of copyright, there is no actual evidence whatsoever that there is a copyright on this article. It should not be presumed that there is.--Gibraltarian 16:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The very fact that the entire text is copied from an external source suggests copyright. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 17:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I have written a (basic) replacement article at Royal Gibraltar Police/Temp. Gibraltarian, if you would like to add any further information on the RGP, you would be most welcome to do so at its temp page. Happy editing. Take care all. SoLando (Talk) 20:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

--

Simplicity itself: So for both these reasons, we cannot directly copy and paste that article. So there's an easy solution: just write a new article using the facts from the website but not its structure, sentences, or phrasing. Simplicity itself. Doops | talk 03:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Everything anybody writes is automatically under copyright, whether or not that copyright is explicitly claimed with a symbol.
 * Quite apart from the legal aspects of copyright, academic ethics deem it unacceptable to pass off somebody else's work as your own.
 * Writing is copyright; facts aren't.


 * I am going to delete the copyright text, and move the temp page to its place.--Cyberjunkie |

Talk 06:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

"The RGP was the first police service formed outside the United Kingdom"
This sounds doubtful. I suspect a qualification of "in the British Empire" or similar is missing ? --MBRZ48 (talk) 07:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Infobox
I have changed the InfoBox back the standard one for all law enforcement agencies. There is a slow but background activity to place the standard infobox on all law enforcement agency articles. While the reason given for the earlier change was not a correct one, the move to the new standard InfoBox was correct. Peet Ern (talk) 00:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)