Talk:Dilmah

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Neutrality

This article is not neutral at all. It reads like a marketing brochure. I strongly suggest that it be modified. — Yama 11:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

-Seconded, also could the rumour that dilmah is not actually fair trade be sustainiated/squashed. 203.184.33.206 01:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright

...really have to wonder why bother contributing to WP at all... So tell me why my changes were wiped? Copyright? Are you an expert in copyright law? Try to explain how you can include the company's logo, but not excerpts from a public note! And wiped while editing was in progress — try to learn some manners! —DIV (128.250.204.118 05:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC))

Just because a note is public does not mean that it is not covered by copyright. Wikipedia does not permit copyright violations. --Yamla 05:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Luckily Wikipedia also does not permit me to tell you precisely what I think of your actions.

There is no copyright infringement in extracting passages of a public note. If you think otherwise, prove it. Give me an example of just one successful prosecution, under any jurisdiction you like.

I can legally quote a memorable passage from a novel in a newspaper review, despite the fact that the novel is copyrighted. The pertinent points are the proportion of the full work and the purpose of the quotation. I should not do the same for a private manuscript (without permsission). The pertinent points are whether the work is public and the effect on the copyright owner.

See also Copyright#Fair_use_and_fair_dealing for a very basic overview.

You also managed to ignorantly wipe out other users' improvements to the article, which should have been reinstated, but apparently no-one looks at the histories to see that the pathetic stub that exists is actually the stump of a nicer version that got hacked.

—DIV (128.250.80.15 (talk) 04:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Accuracy

Dilmah is a brand of MJF Group, according to their website. I'd correct the article, but someone who 'knows better' would probably change it back :-p —DIV (128.250.204.118 05:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC))

Speaking of slash-and-burn editors, in your rush to defend copyright(?!), you've wiped things wholesale so this really is a stub (again) now. For example, the link to the charitable Foundation — that link was a violation too, I suppose? Oh, sorry, you're too busy to fix things to make them better :-P —DIV 128.250.204.118 (talk)