Talk:Callippe silverspot butterfly
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Untitled
[edit]The website explictly states "Not all the information on our site is in the public domain" and does not state that this refers only to images. It's an annoyingly ambiguous statement but it has to be construed in the most negative fashion, namely that items on the website cannot be assumed to be in the public domain. For example in this article the species description may have been taken with permission from the first reference which may not be public domain - we don't know.
Where copyright is unclear it's the responsibility of the author to clarify it. In this case an assertion of permission is essential.
For this reason I've restored the speedy tag.
andy 21:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
The information not in the public domain on these sites is specified. All US PD sites carry this legend, and all are used. USFWS pages are widely used throughout WP. [1] It is to be construed by common sense. Your proposed rule would require the deletion of all US PD derived material. Please discuss on WP:Copyright.
Anyway, this is not speedy--read WP:CSD--speedy for copyvio is for unquestionable copyvios, where no assertion of permission is given is given, and this is 1/ not unquestionable. 2/ permission is asserted. In cases which do not meet "unquestionable" it must be discussed., DGG (talk) 00:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)