Talk:Alec Campbell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Dear Aaron,

thank you very much for your additional work on the article Alec Campbell. Today i was going to add more internal links, you have done that already. A perfect teamwork, thanx once more. By the way, about the copyrights: I have has well crown copyright permission of the Ministry of Culture and Heritage, New Zealand. You may have seen my homepage, i wish i would have some more time to make the history information more than it actually is at this stage. I live in Turkey and i have lots of friends living and having businesses at Gallipoli (please see for example the homepage of journalist [1] Ayhan Oncu, with lots of info and pics about last ANZAC Day, that gives me always the chance beeing always up to date about ANZAC Day themes.

Many greetings, and keep up the good work


Wikipedia is always a team enterprise - that's exactly what makes it so successful. Sometimes the the fact that the fact that its on the internet can encourage problems to develop in communication and unfortunately thats what happened here, particularly in that I didn't realise that you had permission. While I'm a major contributor to the article, I'm not the only editor and I don't think of myself as the author or anything like that. - Aaron Hill 10:11, August 3, 2005 (UTC)


Dear Aaron, i can tell you that i am really unhappy about the fact that you did remove my contribution about Alec Campbell. Your note: "(rvt, previous edit copyvio from [])" is not true at all, mate. You are dreaming. I spent a good time on it, to review the page of Alec Campbell. The page was very poor before, like it is again now after your removal. Parts of the text i used there (but not 100% equal), is from my own website exactly hosted at Some of the facts on my homepage about Alec Campbell are with permission from, perrmission granted to me in 2003. Last week when i found the Wikipedia page, i really liked to spend my time to contribut here as well, but now i became sick of it. Aaron, better you do everything on Wikipedia yourself.

regards Heiko

Hi Heiko,

I hope you're not too discouraged by my terse nature in edit summaries, but to be honest, I've probably reverted about 30 copyright violations and this is the only one that has actually created an issue. Also, it wasn't just the occasional phrase that was copied in this particular case, but rather 50% of the article was copied and this formed about 90% of the edit. If you didn't have permission, this is a breach of Australian and United States copyright law.

Since it appears that you may have permission for use and in that case I do apologise for reverting the article initially. I've rewritten the article to try and integrate the two components into the one piece of prose rather than for it to skip from one bit to the other so suddenly. By the way, "Avoid Copyright Paranoia" is a hotly debated topic and is far from policy and I consider myself quite firmly on the "paranoia" side. A simple reversion is usually the standard for copyvios, especially in such cases where the entire contents of an edit seem to be a violation of copyright, especially when this copyright is clearly established in the case of a Commonwealth Government webpage. - Aaron Hill 13:48, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

If you find a copyright infringement[edit]

It is not the job of rank-and-file Wikipedians to police content for possible copyright infringement, but if you suspect one, you should at the very least bring up the issue on that page's talk page. Others can then examine the situation and take action if needed. The most helpful piece of information you can provide is a URL or other reference to what you believe may be the source of the text.

Some cases will be false alarms. For example, if the contributor was in fact the author of the text that is published elsewhere under different terms, that does not affect their right to post it here under the GFDL. Also, sometimes you will find text elsewhere on the Web that was copied from Wikipedia. In both of these cases, it is a good idea to make a note in the talk page to discourage such false alarms in the future.

Alec Campbell's permission to enlist in AIF[edit]

I met Alec Campbell shortly before his death. He told me he definitely DID have his parents' permission to enlist, contrary to what is currently written in this article. Evidence of this is in his original service file, digitised by the National Archives of Australia. See: and

If there is no evidence presented that shows that this is incorrect, I intend to change that part of the article to reflect the reality of his enlistment. Hayaman 21:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Inaccurate quote[edit]

In a previous edit, I changed the following:

"Before the war, who had ever heard of ANZAC? Hereafter, who will ever forget it?"[2]


"Before the war, who had ever heard of Anzac? Hereafter, who will ever forget it?"[2]

This edit was then was reverted to the first version, along with the comment:

"(Please check your edits before you save them - don't change quoted text, and don't turn blue links into red links.)"

The 'quote' - attributed to General Sir Ian Hamilton - not only needs to be changed, it needs to be removed completely, for the simple reason that General Hamilton never wrote this. This is a quote from a secondary source. Only. No evidence exists that Hamilton ever wrote this. If anyone disagrees, and can point me to the reference in Hamilton's own writings, please do so and I will happily consider myself corrected.

The fact that this 'quote' is repeated in numerous sites will not make an original source spring to life. It is therefore non-existent and inaccurate. However, HAD Hamilton written this, then he would have used the word 'Anzac' - as he did in every other instance in his writings, because he is describing the PLACE - Anzac. That is, the Anzac sector (as distinct from the Helles or Suvla sectors) at Gallipoli. I can supply any number of scans from Hamilton's writings to prove this. Again, just because a fallacy is repeated often does not make it accurate, and there should be no room for such carelessness in fact-checking on Wikipedia.

Hayaman 03:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

To quote Wikipedia: 'Encyclopedic content must be verifiable.' Merely repeating what appears on another website and claiming this as a direct quote from an original source does not meet this basic criteria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayaman (talkcontribs) 03:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)