Talk:Living lab

Ecology Low‑importance

	Ecology portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Ecology, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve ecology-related articles.EcologyWikipedia:WikiProject EcologyTemplate:WikiProject EcologyEcology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology 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.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Science Low‑importance

	Science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science 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.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles 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.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Science_park

I think it needs to be made clear how these 2 inter-relate. As there seems quite some overlap. Its not enough to say that Labs have computers so do Science Parks nowadays - does that make them the same?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.246.214.67 (talk) 18:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright

Regarding the re-use of the Living Lab article of the ECOSPACE Newsletter published online in the AMI Communities wiki pages, I can explain that I'm the editor of the ECOSPACE Newsletter and the main author of this article on Living Lab. However, I thought that I'd included a proper reference to my Living Lab newsletter article. In case I did not then I'll be please to do so as soon as I can get a chance to edit and complete this wikipedia Living Lab page. Marcpallot (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcpallot (talk • contribs) 16:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at the history page, I've got the confirmation that my previous article was in reference:

Pallot, M; Trousse, B.; Prinz, W.;Richir, S.; de Ruyter, B.;Rerolle, O.: Katzy, B.;Senach, B.: Living Labs Research. ECOSPACE Special Issue Newsletter 5 dedicated to Living Labs, pages 15–22.

Marcpallot (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can clear up the copyright concerns by emailing permissions-en@wikimedia.org as is described in the instructions on the article. Even with that cleared up, though, due to our policy on original research it is not a good idea to copy and paste your works from elsewhere into Wikipedia, or to cite yourself as a source for your edits to Wikipedia. The article may need an extensive rewrite (or deletion, depending on how many independent sources we can find) to repair that. - MrOllie (talk) 17:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your encouraging words, I really appreciate. As you may notice, I'm not the only source as there is a long reference list. However, I do agree that it would be better to synthetise this previous article instead of simply re-using it....just a minor problem of missing time...the most valuable resource...this is why I still beleive in the value of providing useful information/references to others even if this page is not yet a perfect one....may be I was too much expecting others to contribute to improve it. By the way, there are plenty of other pages in wikipedia that looks like promotional material...but I'm tolerant enough to just turn to other more interesting pages/articles....as I'm not a stupid robot. Marcpallot (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.cwe-projects.eu/pub/bscw.cgi/d2029580/ECOSPACE_Newsletter_No_5.pdf http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/eeurope/i2010/docs/post_i2010/additional_contributions/ghentdeclaration.pdf (See Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2010 March 26). Infringing material has been removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Living lab. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 10:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]