Draft talk:Peter Krasinski
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This draft does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
“Copyrighted” bio
[edit]The bio from Krasinski.org that my original edits were from is not copyrighted material and is freely available to use. What steps do I need to take to prove this to other Wiki editors? I am in contact with the owners of that site as well. The original photo I posted to the article is freely useable.
How do I regain access to the edits I made? There are numerous citations from the original edits before CFA removed the edits, from news articles and magazines, etc. to support notability etc. I am happy to reword things if needed, but let me know how to remove the block on those edits. The original text and photos do not have copyright issues and I have permission to use that text. Fangorsangel (talk) 21:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- Fangorsangel, you didn't ping any of the editors, but I happened to see your edit. First of all, https://krasinski.org/bio/ is the URL we're talking about. User:CFA tagged it as a copyvio, and I assume that User:Diannaa was the one who scrubbed those edits--and they were scrubbed because we cannot have copyrighted information on our servers. Diannaa is the expert on copyright, I am not, but I can tell you this: basically that content was lifted from the website, and we're not a website for resumes or advertising--we're an encyclopedia, and that text, in tone and in content, was simply not acceptable here. It is entirely possible that the subject is notable by our standards, but text needs to have reliable secondary sources (NOT personal websites) and be neutral in tone. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:00, 25 September 2024 (UTC)