Talk:Electronic Instrument System

Untitled

I have taken this content, with only formatting changes, from the following source: [1]. This is the Transportation Safety Board of Canada, and its license states that the information is free to be copied and modified for non-commercial use. I assume that would include publishing on Wikipedia. I shall have to leave it to someone with the expertise to do this to decide and add the necessary attribution in the document if this is what's required. The license info is available here.

There is a corresponding image that shows an annotated view of the MD-11 cockpit that I would have included, but Wikimedia Commons does not allow "for noncommercial use only" licenses. I don't know if this image could be added or referenced by some other means. Here's a link to the relevant image--Tim.spears 23:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Format

This thing is a monster.. But I will try formating it the best I can is there anyone who actually knows about this stuff that could possibly research quickly what all the abbreviations stand for if anyone looks here... — Preceding unsigned comment added by K.Hollingsworth486 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

In its unreferenced state, I'd recommend redirecting this page to Electronic flight instrument system. Any thoughts? Ryan Vesey 20:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

possible copyright issue

Based on the comment above on sourcing, this is potentially a copyright violation. The original page is gone but the Wayback Machine has a copy here. The notice on acceptable use of the content is gone but the Wayback Machine has it archived too. As noted above, the material cannot be reproduced for commercial use, and as such, it is not compatible with the licensing on Wikipedia. -- Whpq (talk) 21:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to speed this up then and redirect it. I'll ask an admin for revdeletion. Ryan Vesey 21:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem is, the wayback machine will always have that copy that is a copyvio. Even if I speedy delete the article, it will exist there. I'm not completely sure what the right answer is, but I need to first see if the original is a true wholesale infrigement, or just a paraphrasing before I know if it needs revdel. Will look into that now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I would say that the simplest solution would be to delete the article. A redirect, if warranted, can then be created after article deletion. I looked at the history and it was copied at article creation and appears to have been that way in all iterations. -- Whpq (talk) 21:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean the wayback machine will always have a copy that is copyvio? Ryan Vesey 21:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The wayback machine will always have that cached copy, there is no way for us to change the wayback machine, not our website. They have copies of all sites, for many many dates. That is what they do, take snapshots of current states of website, and archive them forever. I did revdel here, which was a very ugly but easy way to deal with the licensing issue, and it can be undone if needed. Making a redirect was the best solution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)