Talk:General average

message: I'm not entirely sure what you tagged is really a copyvio, it's permissible to copy some text verbatim without violating copyright law, and the source is referenced. But I changed the wording of the two sentences to remove any concerns. --Stbalbach 17:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some text may be permissible. But copying an entire work, pasting it, moving a few paragraphs around and changing a few words does not qualify. Ask yourself this: do you consider this article to be substantially your own work? See WP:Fair use for more information. Ewlyahoocom 17:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that characterization is not what happened, but I understand your concerns and have modified the second paragraph. -- Stbalbach 23:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How would you characterize it? I suggest that the best course of action may be to delete everything, then rewrite the entire article from scratch in your own words. By now you should be familiar enough with the subject do that, yes? Let me further add that I think Wikipedia needs this article. I don't remember exactly what led me to this page, but I think I remembered something about this coming up a few years back and I wanted to learn more. Ewlyahoocom 23:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyvio [[general average]]

message: I really think that is not a good idea to text dump EB1911 material in here. Even the expert in this field above recommended against it. Unless you know what your doing and can verify that the EB1911 is up to date, modern and accurate it should not be included here. -- Stbalbach 03:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll be the first to admit that the 1911 articles are not the best, and there's a load of scan/typos at the bottom, but at least they're copyright free. If you really dislike the 1911 articles I strongly recommend against you looking at this list. Ewlyahoocom 03:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I know all about the problem, I wrote most of Encyclopedia_Britannica_Eleventh_Edition#1911_Britannica_in_the_21st_century and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias#The_origins_of_bias (1911 bullet), as well as reverted more EB1911 articles than I care to remember. It's usually better to have a blank slate (or stub) than 1911 material, which is usually such a mess that no one bothers to spend the hours required to verify and clean it up -- it's a like a death sentence when an article gets EB'd. -- Stbalbach 00:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: EB 1911

message: Should there be more about how law of general average has now spilled over into general insurance law (viz when the property is under insured, the owner is deemed to be co-insurer for the amount of the undervalue?). --Legis (talk - contributions) 11:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Insurance

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on General average. 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:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090923144615/http://www.usaverageadjusters.org:80/YAR.htm to http://www.usaverageadjusters.org/YAR.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:47, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified