User talk:Pedro lgodoy

Pissarrachampsa
I have removed part of your addition to the above article, as it was copied from https://peerj.com/articles/2075/. While the source material is licensed, Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) is not a compatible license with Wikipedia. — Diannaa (talk) 22:08, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, this editor is clearly the main author of the paper (Pedro L. Godoy), so it would appear they're fine with it. FunkMonk (talk) 22:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Pinging, in case you missed this. FunkMonk (talk) 00:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I saw that, but we can't publish the material here without an OTRS ticket, because the CC BY 4.0 International is not a compatible license with this wiki. Pedro lgodoy, if you are the copyright holder and wish to release this material to Wikipedia under license, please follow the instructions at WP:Donating copyrighted materials. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa (talk) 00:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * How come that license is compatible with images, but not text? And where can you see it is not compatible? FunkMonk (talk) 00:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * FAQ/Copyright states that "According to the WMF legal team, CC BY-SA 4.0 is not backwards compatible with CC BY-SA 3.0. Therefore, mixing text licences under 3.0 and 4.0 would be problematic, however files uploaded under this licence are fine." The key phrase being "backwards compatible". — Diannaa (talk) 12:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It would be a fairly easy task to re-add the information with different phrasing and writing, however, since you deleted the revisions I have no idea what was deleted. FunkMonk do you know? IJReid  discuss 14:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, that seems a bit like the baby being thrown out with the bathwater. Well, can't see it either anymore... FunkMonk (talk) 14:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have been thinking about this, and the material is so technical that re-wording is likely out of the question. I have decided the passage is not so long that we can't host it as a properly attributed block quote and have restored it on that basis.— Diannaa (talk) 19:31, 31 May 2016 (UTC)