Talk:Network of Excellence

We are part of this organization so we use the content of our website, what else do we need to do for not being removed ... Zacharewicz (talk) 13:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you.

Also, for the material that has previously appeared elsewhere, you will need to provide evidence that you have the right to release it under the Creative Commons licence that Wikipedia operates under. Details of how to do this are at WP:CONSENT. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 13:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Infrigement

This message about copyrigth violation as it is now is non-relevent. NoE is a term that was invented by the European commission and not the reference that was indicated (at Eurosfaire) that just copy the description. Besides, the description is really short, and therefore I do not understand what is this story about copyright violation!. It could be good that people that put such notices have a basic knowledge about the domain they are talking about. If you were to put this copyright notice back, please provide more solid evidence .--Nabeth (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Information: indication fo the copyright notice is at: Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2009_June_17 --Nabeth (talk) 15:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may like to read WP:PLAGIARISM to see why uncredited light paraphrasing of others' work is not acceptable. It's also not on to just revert a copyvio template placement, nor is it acceptable to accuse another editor of ignorance. Please comment on the issue, not the contributor. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 13:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have read it. Let's not enter into an editor war. If you look at the context, there was in not place intention of evidence to steal other's work. The other works that was already cited ("and this was just a few lines") was information that was already relaid from another article. "Plagiarism is the incorporation of someone else's work without providing adequate credit.". Do you call what was "copied" work?. This is exactly like when journalists copy a strip line, that's all. Plagiarism is a bad thing, but accusing other people to have commited plagiarism is also not very nice. We should be careful not to discourage participation (you know the story of crying for the wolf). In this case, putting Plagiarism was overreacting, because questionnable (I mean was not clearly established if we take the definition), and this issue should have been solved in the talk page. The citation I am very sorry about this was incorrect, and indeed indicated to my opinion a limited knowledge of the subject. NoE, as an instrument, have existed for a very long time. best regards. --Nabeth (talk) 14:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is in reply to the copyright violation notice at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2009_June_17. The initial placement of the copyright violation notice by User:Redvers was correct. For example, the section of the article beginning They aim to overcome the fragmentation of European research by... and ending ...NoE also have to spread excellence beyond the boundaries of its partnership. is a direct copy (including format) from the CORDIS website without attribution. As currently rewritten, the issues of the copyright violations have now been resolved. — CactusWriter | ^needles 10:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development

I can see the need to link to a central article to contextualise the term NoE, but I think that the redirect is inappropriate: there needs to be a definition of "Network of Excellence" somewhere. I propose removing the redirect but adding a 'See also Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development' link Spartakan (talk) 08:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I originally intended to PROD or AfD this, as it doesn't seem to have an independent notability. As with the STReP, I think that a brief definition in the Framework article would suffice. In contrast to STReP, which is a typical EU "bureaucratese" expression, I can see this redirect eventually develop into a disambiguation page: "Network of Excellence" is such a general term that I can't image that only EU bureaucrats would come up with it. (Here in France we have already the LABEX and EQUIPEX -Laboratory of Excellence and Equipment of Excellence- so NoE cannot be far away). --Crusio (talk) 09:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not au fait with the ins and outs of wikipedia jargon. I guess so long as if I enter STReP into wikipedia, I am directed to a page that says what it is, that's fine (ie why not add a section to this page that explains some of the better known instruments if you want to remove the standalone page?) I know STReP is a bureaucratic term, but it's one that has been in use through several FP cycles and is frequently used in research circles (as I'm sure you know!) Spartakan (talk) 20:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]