Talk:Akhmed Chatayev

Refugee status
Information from Amnesty Information have been removed "due to copyright reasons". But I can't find any copyright sign on page https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eur50/002/2010/en/ 176.77.31.1 (talk) 16:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This Information from Amnesty cannot be found in the revision history. Also, this article had a lot of valuable information just one day ago. It has all disappeared, WITH NO REASON GIVEN, and cannot even be found in the revision history. Are we in a case of CENSORSHIP??? --Jacques de Selliers (talk) 18:32, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, the Amnesty website can freely be reproduced. See https://www.amnesty.org/en/about-us/permissions/: "Except where otherwise noted, content in Amnesty International Materials is licensed under a Creative Commons (attribution, non-commercial, no derivatives, international 4.0) licence." --Jacques de Selliers (talk) 18:52, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but the non-commercial, no derivatives, international 4.0 licence is not a compatible license. — Diannaa (talk) 19:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Sorry, I don't understand why a Creative Commons (attribution, non-commercial, no derivatives, international 4.0) licence "is not a compatible license".
 * 2) Should it really be "not a compatible license", I don't understand why ALL the text has been suppressed, including the vast majority of it which is NOT in infringement.
 * 3) I don't understand why ALL the suppressed text has been made invisible in the revision history, so one can't even check whether the suppression is justified and/or correct the material - without ANY preliminary discussion in the talk page. This way of proceeding seems arbitrary to me and therefore in total contradiction with the spirit of Wikipedia.
 * Please answer all three points. --Jacques de Selliers (talk) 07:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't understand too why Creative Common license is not compatible. Here is the another source: http://www.dw.com/en/chatayev-the-man-suspected-of-the-attack-in-istanbul/a-19373830 176.77.31.1 (talk) 07:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * FAQ/Copyright lists compatible licenses. Non-commercial, no derivatives licenses are not compatible because Wikipedia aims to be re-useable by anyone for any purpose, even commercial uses. "No derivatives" means we are not allowed to paraphrase or change the text in any way; again this is not compatible with Wikipedia editing, where prose is changed and amended all the time to suit our needs. And finally, the Wikimedia legal department has stated that in their opinion the Creative Commons 4.0 license is not backwards-compatible with CC BY-SA 3.0. Regarding the copyright violation, I found two snippets that were not copy vio and were removed by mistake, so I have added them back in. Sorry about that. Regarding the remainder of the material I removed, if you wish my work to be double checked, you should ask another administrator to do so. None of the other people you have pinged are administrators, so none of them are in a position to help you with this step. Pretty much all of the content I removed appears in several locations online. Almost all of it is in this news story that was published on June 30. The material was added to this wiki on July 2. — Diannaa (talk) 13:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually, i just added some ref (url with tags) without any copyrighted or copy-pasted texts. But i do not care about this mass-deletion cuz i am not U.S. citizen. Halfcookie (talk) 12:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC)