Talk:ArcAttack

The disputed text was just a direct quote from the ArcAttack web page, there is no copyright violation.

http://madscientist.org.uk/bios.html appears to be copyrighted (see the bottom), and you are therefore not allowed to copy any part of it and place it somewhere else. If it is still copied from http://www.arcattack.com/about.php it should be changed as it may well be copyrighted and appears to be promotional and therefore disagrees with WP:NPOV. See Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Jhbuk (talk) 22:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I have contacted the blog owner regarding the "copyrighted" text and they are paraphrasing it and removing any implication that the text itself is copyrighted. As far as being copied from the ArcAttack webpage, it is my webpage and the text is not copyrighted. Also, the text is meant to be informative and not promotional. As soon as the blog in question modifies their entry, I will be undoing the changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Epilectrik (talk • contribs) 22:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

This article is based on the text from the "about" section of the web page and is meant to be informative, and not promotional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Epilectrik (talk • contribs) 22:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

As there doesn't appear to be any copyright on the page, I have put back the content for now (although copying from a webpage into wikipedia is strongly discouraged), but I still feel it is excessively promotional (eg: phrases like "otherworldly experience" and "he's actually very nice."). If you are affiliated with the subject, see WP:COI. Jhbuk (talk) 23:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

In addition to being spam, this appears to be vulnerable to speedy deletion per db-band; also, blogs aren't acceptable sources for Wikipedia articles.... 76.248.149.51 (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Noted, I'm modifying the article to be more informative and less promotional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Epilectrik (talk • contribs) 23:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The information was taken from our about section because it seems redundant to reword all of it just to merit the fact that it wasn't quoted from a blog. I am removing irrelevant information per your suggestions and will continue to modify the article to become more encyclopedic. I don't feel as though the article is vulnerable due to "db-band" since this performance group utilizes cutting edge technologies that had never been used before previously, hence fulfilling the requirement of being notable.Epilectrik (talk) 23:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Still an article in need of sources, per WP:BAND and WP:RELIABLE. Until objective references support the group's importance--and given the unusual premise, news sources may exist-- the article is ripe for db-band. It's also unclear that the individual members merit biographies here. 76.248.149.51 (talk) 00:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Noted, news sources exist in abundance, working on references currently.Epilectrik (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Rewrote the introduction and added references to objective news sources. I left in the biographies for now though I will remove them if necessary. I will continue to update the article as relevant ideas emerge and suggestions arise. Epilectrik (talk) 05:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)