![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 |
Hello!
Since a year, many of us Wikipedians trying to add logo of Bangladesh football federation.svg on Bangladesh national football team & Bangladesh women's national football team. But everytime someone is deleting showing the reason: It was removed in accordance with the non-free content policy, with which you are obligated to comply.
My question is If we can't use that public domain logo how Argentina, India, Brazil and other national football teams are using their respective federation logo?
Also, this exact same logo is currently using on Bengali Wikipedia Bangladesh national football team pages including under 17, under 20, under 23 and the national teams (both men and women). See here:
Men's National &
Women's National
Please help by adding the logo and add some sort of file protection so that others don't delete this again!
At the end, it represents Bangladesh to the world with pride! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HridoyKundu ( talk • contribs) 16:37, March 16, 2023 (UTC)
Hello! I noticed the Royal Institution source "Faraday sent copies of his scientific paper along with pocket-sized models of his device to scientific colleagues all over the world so they too could witness the phenomenon of electromagnetic rotations themselves" vs our text "Faraday published the results of his discovery in the Quarterly Journal of Science, and sent copies of his paper along with pocket-sized models of his device to colleagues around the world so they could also witness the phenomenon of electromagnetic rotations" (as summarized by @ DuncanHill) in the Michael Faraday article. I was recommended to discuss it here. Thx in advance, SwampedEssayist ( talk) 17:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Wizardman (and MER-C and Justlettersandnumbers), re this edit summary, despair not :). I believe I have gone through now almost all of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20210315, and identified those articles that are almost entirely DC content for submission to WP:CP. I may still find some stragglers, but from WP:DCGAR, I am fairly certain that you will find the workload goes away in about six more days. At most, if I continue to find WP:CP candidates from the DC CCI, they will be sporadic. Hang in there, and thanks for all the work! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
I can not currently login to CopyPatrol (I can open the page and review the articles but can not mark them as done), do other people also experience the same problem? Ymblanter ( talk) 07:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Could an admin help me sort the history of John Caldwell (Michigan representative)? It appears there was a previous delete and history merge, and the first two edits in the history of the article don't seem to tell the entire story, based on the edit summary of the second edit. In this case, I'm trying to determine if the author of the original content is DC, as he self-identifies on Wikipedia as Caldwell, not Coldwell (a name he used on Wikipedia) from Michigan, and he uploaded family images including Caldwell's personal legislative book and
How much I can PDEL, and whether this article should go to WP:CP based on offline sources depends on who wrote all that original content (and evaluating for COI may also be in order). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
I saw this: User talk:Manish kumar 675/sandbox which came from this. The copyright problems page only talks about articles, not user sandboxes or other user pages. It's possible the editor is going to try to rewrite it and turn it into an article. STEMinfo ( talk) 23:11, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
A question has arisen about my methodology when adding sentences to Wikipedia articles that were sent to me by content experts via e-mail. Those sentences are not copyright violations as they are "own words / new words / original text" so that is not the problem. The question is rather whether the e-mail exchanges with those content experts need to be stored somewhere, or their explicit permission to use their words needs to be stored? If so where should it be stored, for how long, including their actual name and e-mail address?
The reason for asking is that technically they don't click on the little box saying "By writing text for Wikipedia, you agree to Wikipedia's Terms of Use and agree to irrevocably release your text under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license." but I do (on their behalf if you like). Further background to this question is available here.
Often times their proposed sentences are not added directly as they are but modified by me (e.g. to make them easier to understand) so technically, that content then becomes "my content" anyhow, not theirs, right? So in a way, they are rather advisers to my editing rather than ghost editors themselves. The content experts that I work with have all been given the option to edit directly themselves but most of them have declined that option and are rather sending me marked-up Word documents of the Wikipedia articles to show me what - in their opinion - needs changing. EMsmile ( talk) 09:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
This person has a page on talk that they say was previously submitted as a university thesis. I've left a message on the talkpage but no response for more than a week - I'm not sure whether I should use the copyvio tag or not, I can't find a relevant policy about talkpages and this specific scenario User:Aquaticonions/Beyond_the_Neutral_Point_of_View JMWt ( talk) 16:56, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi all, what is the license here? Proeksad ( talk) 09:45, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
The article Modhalum Kadhalum directly copies all content from the declined draft submission I made Draft:Modhalum Kaadhalum, with the help of a few others (mainly @ Aspiringeditor1 with everyone else on the history page), without being mentioned in any way. It would be helpful if there can be a reasonable solution to this. Tirishan ( talk) 09:43, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
I personally don't find this useful or helpful in cleaning up and identifying copyvio - I spend way too much time hunting down a potential source that may very well be dead, or not even cited in the article. If other people here also don't find it useful, then I will probably start a wider discussion for deprecation, but if people do still find it useful, I will leave it be. Sennecaster ( Chat) 18:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello! I'm Chlod, the developer of Deputy. You may have heard of this tool before or you may be an active user, but in case you haven't heard of it prior, it's a tool for streamlining some of the copyright cleanup work on this wiki.
I'm currently holding a survey to gauge editors' experience of the tool, be it as a user or a non-user. You're invited to participate, even if you don't use Deputy! The responses collected will help improve the tool and, if you're not a user, help make Deputy work smoothly with how you do your work.
The survey can be found here, and you can learn more about this survey on the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki. Thanks! Chlod ( say hi!) 23:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Can the amazing folks who work this page take a look at a close paraphrasing concern in an upcoming TFA and provide some feedback? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
I would appreciate the input of any copyright experts at Talk:We Didn't Start the Fire § Event list removed for copyright reasons. -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she|they|xe) 03:05, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Currently, half of CP is taken up by instructions that largely duplicate existing policy pages. As mentioned by others, the problem is that CP used to (and to a degree still is) largely be a hub for copyright instructions so information like backwards copy, etc still links here, despite the prevalence of many alternative pages that such guidance could (and should) be included on. I have a few suggestions:
There is a broader problem involving a lack of cohesion on copyright guidance pages; the copyright sidebar contains a score of links that contain large amounts of overlap: perhaps merging some of these should be considered.
For now however, I think moving some of the instructions that have broader impacts outside of CP, e.g. backwards copy should be a focus and I might boldly do that if there are no objections. I think the status quo is more overwhelming for reporters than actually useful. – Isochrone ( T) 12:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Template talk:Copyvio § Making the template more intuitive. –
Isochrone (
T)
13:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:Deletion process § Extensive copyedits and reorganisation, small updates. –
Novem Linguae (
talk)
03:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Pages may also be deleted if they have been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems for over 7 days.
is being discussed. –
Novem Linguae (
talk)
03:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please see here. I included a too many quotations tag on the page but it was removed, with the justification there is only one quotation (no there are many!), and posted to the main page as an RD! Need advice on whether this is actually copyvio, given they're all quotations. Polyamorph ( talk) 11:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 December 4 § Template:OpenAI. –
Novem Linguae (
talk)
05:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 December 4 § Template:AI-generated notification. –
Novem Linguae (
talk)
05:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The instructions at WP:CP for using {{ copyvio}} seem inconsistent with how said template actually works. CP says to replace the text with {{ subst:copyvio}}, while the way the template works, and as the template itself says, one is meant to put {{ subst:copyvio}} above the problematic text, and {{ copyvio/bottom}} below. -- Maddy from Celeste ( WAVEDASH) 15:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
I don't want to put this in a normal report because it concerns an entire category of not-entirely-obscure pages which have been copyvio for many long years, so I infer that something unusual might be going on such that the pages are maybe de facto protected or something, and that's out of scope for a bog-normal report. You guys figure it out.
So, every article in Category:AFI 100 Years... series is list articles, and all (I think) consist mainly of the complete lists -- 100 entries, usually. The lists were produced by the AFI, American Film Institute, based on a vote), which:
I don't know if the AFI then made a purely mechanical tabulation of votes (I'm sure they didn't legally bind themselves to have no right to tweak the list orders, so who knows how it went down) but even if so, that doesn't cancel the earlier work.
So if these aren't copyvio lists I don't know what would be. Herostratus ( talk) 05:15, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Can someone point me to legal precedent justifying our template {{ Freedom of panorama (US only)}}, under which images that would clearly be copyvio in some other country (such as France in which images of buildings are subject to the copyright of the architect) are claimed to be ok to host on Wikipedia because it respects only US copyrights? The images themselves were taken in that other country and, as such, are clearly under a non-free copyright, the copyright of the architect. Our article Berne Convention states that the US, as a participant, is required to respect the copyrights of other Berne convention countries. It has no obvious exception for "if that same image were hypothetically taken of a different building in a different country that had FOP it would not be encumbered by copyright". To me this seems as specious as "if this artwork were painted by a different person in a different country it would not be copyrighted" or "because this foreign work was not registered for copyright in the US it does not count as copyrighted" or "because we want to have images of these buildings we should be allowed to violate copyright". But I am no legal scholar, so maybe there is some subtlety that I am missing? — David Eppstein ( talk) 01:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
“ New listings are not added directly to this page but are instead on daily reports.”
Come on. Please fix this. Volunteer Marek 17:58, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
There is a discussion about copyright templates which could use some additional input. Please join in the conversation here. Primefac ( talk) 07:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, I couldn't work out the right way to report this, but someone has pasted full copyrighted lyrics at Talk:Simple Twist of Fate, in the section "third person". Regards, BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 00:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
What the title says. The page is clunky, and the actual "problems" require a decent amount of scrolling to get to. The instructions are long, not friendly to new people to begin with, and is either duplicated or contradicted in other areas. The non-listings part of this entire page is treated as basically SOP policy/guideline/guide by the community, and hosting it on what's essentially a daily "to do" list is probably not the best. So. Here's a few solutions that I thought of, others probably have better ones. These can be considered independently.
TLDR; page long, guidance should be put elsewhere. Thanks, Sennecaster ( Chat) 01:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
On the aforementioned article are multiple references using Wikia's 'nocookie.net' domain to host PDFs such as: http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/diabetesindogs/images/d/d5/Providing_care_veterinary_diabetics.pdf These do not appear to be open access journals and given what Wikia is, I believe these are illegally hosted here and I presume referencing/linking to them on Wikipedia may be a copyright issue, although I am not sure. Traumnovelle ( talk) 05:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
It seems to be de facto accepted that new articles, even those added in the last day, can be reviewed if the solution is very obvious or clear (or if the requestor is just wrong). The top of the CP page says that pages should be listed for five days before being reviewed (albeit "typically"), the {{ copyvio}} template says seven days, and in reality it seems to be "keep it there for a few days and then touch it".
Having a lot of inconsistencies is not great from an outside-perspective, so should we decide on one set timeframe for reviewing? I would be in favour of scrapping it all together or significantly reducing it (maybe two or three days), but at the very least we should decide between whether it is five or seven days. – Isochrone ( talk) 19:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Any chance of cleaning up Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2024 May 11 = June 2024 Ukraine peace summit? Until this is cleaned up, all post-infringement edits will likely be part of the revdel sequence (presumably from 10:40, 11 May 2024 to whatever the last edit is when revdel-ing), which might be annoying to people who want to know what's in the edits. This article is likely to get more attention over the next few weeks, and hit major media headlines around 15-16 June. Boud ( talk) 14:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 |
Hello!
Since a year, many of us Wikipedians trying to add logo of Bangladesh football federation.svg on Bangladesh national football team & Bangladesh women's national football team. But everytime someone is deleting showing the reason: It was removed in accordance with the non-free content policy, with which you are obligated to comply.
My question is If we can't use that public domain logo how Argentina, India, Brazil and other national football teams are using their respective federation logo?
Also, this exact same logo is currently using on Bengali Wikipedia Bangladesh national football team pages including under 17, under 20, under 23 and the national teams (both men and women). See here:
Men's National &
Women's National
Please help by adding the logo and add some sort of file protection so that others don't delete this again!
At the end, it represents Bangladesh to the world with pride! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HridoyKundu ( talk • contribs) 16:37, March 16, 2023 (UTC)
Hello! I noticed the Royal Institution source "Faraday sent copies of his scientific paper along with pocket-sized models of his device to scientific colleagues all over the world so they too could witness the phenomenon of electromagnetic rotations themselves" vs our text "Faraday published the results of his discovery in the Quarterly Journal of Science, and sent copies of his paper along with pocket-sized models of his device to colleagues around the world so they could also witness the phenomenon of electromagnetic rotations" (as summarized by @ DuncanHill) in the Michael Faraday article. I was recommended to discuss it here. Thx in advance, SwampedEssayist ( talk) 17:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Wizardman (and MER-C and Justlettersandnumbers), re this edit summary, despair not :). I believe I have gone through now almost all of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20210315, and identified those articles that are almost entirely DC content for submission to WP:CP. I may still find some stragglers, but from WP:DCGAR, I am fairly certain that you will find the workload goes away in about six more days. At most, if I continue to find WP:CP candidates from the DC CCI, they will be sporadic. Hang in there, and thanks for all the work! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
I can not currently login to CopyPatrol (I can open the page and review the articles but can not mark them as done), do other people also experience the same problem? Ymblanter ( talk) 07:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Could an admin help me sort the history of John Caldwell (Michigan representative)? It appears there was a previous delete and history merge, and the first two edits in the history of the article don't seem to tell the entire story, based on the edit summary of the second edit. In this case, I'm trying to determine if the author of the original content is DC, as he self-identifies on Wikipedia as Caldwell, not Coldwell (a name he used on Wikipedia) from Michigan, and he uploaded family images including Caldwell's personal legislative book and
How much I can PDEL, and whether this article should go to WP:CP based on offline sources depends on who wrote all that original content (and evaluating for COI may also be in order). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
I saw this: User talk:Manish kumar 675/sandbox which came from this. The copyright problems page only talks about articles, not user sandboxes or other user pages. It's possible the editor is going to try to rewrite it and turn it into an article. STEMinfo ( talk) 23:11, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
A question has arisen about my methodology when adding sentences to Wikipedia articles that were sent to me by content experts via e-mail. Those sentences are not copyright violations as they are "own words / new words / original text" so that is not the problem. The question is rather whether the e-mail exchanges with those content experts need to be stored somewhere, or their explicit permission to use their words needs to be stored? If so where should it be stored, for how long, including their actual name and e-mail address?
The reason for asking is that technically they don't click on the little box saying "By writing text for Wikipedia, you agree to Wikipedia's Terms of Use and agree to irrevocably release your text under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license." but I do (on their behalf if you like). Further background to this question is available here.
Often times their proposed sentences are not added directly as they are but modified by me (e.g. to make them easier to understand) so technically, that content then becomes "my content" anyhow, not theirs, right? So in a way, they are rather advisers to my editing rather than ghost editors themselves. The content experts that I work with have all been given the option to edit directly themselves but most of them have declined that option and are rather sending me marked-up Word documents of the Wikipedia articles to show me what - in their opinion - needs changing. EMsmile ( talk) 09:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
This person has a page on talk that they say was previously submitted as a university thesis. I've left a message on the talkpage but no response for more than a week - I'm not sure whether I should use the copyvio tag or not, I can't find a relevant policy about talkpages and this specific scenario User:Aquaticonions/Beyond_the_Neutral_Point_of_View JMWt ( talk) 16:56, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi all, what is the license here? Proeksad ( talk) 09:45, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
The article Modhalum Kadhalum directly copies all content from the declined draft submission I made Draft:Modhalum Kaadhalum, with the help of a few others (mainly @ Aspiringeditor1 with everyone else on the history page), without being mentioned in any way. It would be helpful if there can be a reasonable solution to this. Tirishan ( talk) 09:43, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
I personally don't find this useful or helpful in cleaning up and identifying copyvio - I spend way too much time hunting down a potential source that may very well be dead, or not even cited in the article. If other people here also don't find it useful, then I will probably start a wider discussion for deprecation, but if people do still find it useful, I will leave it be. Sennecaster ( Chat) 18:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello! I'm Chlod, the developer of Deputy. You may have heard of this tool before or you may be an active user, but in case you haven't heard of it prior, it's a tool for streamlining some of the copyright cleanup work on this wiki.
I'm currently holding a survey to gauge editors' experience of the tool, be it as a user or a non-user. You're invited to participate, even if you don't use Deputy! The responses collected will help improve the tool and, if you're not a user, help make Deputy work smoothly with how you do your work.
The survey can be found here, and you can learn more about this survey on the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki. Thanks! Chlod ( say hi!) 23:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Can the amazing folks who work this page take a look at a close paraphrasing concern in an upcoming TFA and provide some feedback? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
I would appreciate the input of any copyright experts at Talk:We Didn't Start the Fire § Event list removed for copyright reasons. -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she|they|xe) 03:05, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Currently, half of CP is taken up by instructions that largely duplicate existing policy pages. As mentioned by others, the problem is that CP used to (and to a degree still is) largely be a hub for copyright instructions so information like backwards copy, etc still links here, despite the prevalence of many alternative pages that such guidance could (and should) be included on. I have a few suggestions:
There is a broader problem involving a lack of cohesion on copyright guidance pages; the copyright sidebar contains a score of links that contain large amounts of overlap: perhaps merging some of these should be considered.
For now however, I think moving some of the instructions that have broader impacts outside of CP, e.g. backwards copy should be a focus and I might boldly do that if there are no objections. I think the status quo is more overwhelming for reporters than actually useful. – Isochrone ( T) 12:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Template talk:Copyvio § Making the template more intuitive. –
Isochrone (
T)
13:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:Deletion process § Extensive copyedits and reorganisation, small updates. –
Novem Linguae (
talk)
03:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Pages may also be deleted if they have been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems for over 7 days.
is being discussed. –
Novem Linguae (
talk)
03:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please see here. I included a too many quotations tag on the page but it was removed, with the justification there is only one quotation (no there are many!), and posted to the main page as an RD! Need advice on whether this is actually copyvio, given they're all quotations. Polyamorph ( talk) 11:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 December 4 § Template:OpenAI. –
Novem Linguae (
talk)
05:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 December 4 § Template:AI-generated notification. –
Novem Linguae (
talk)
05:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The instructions at WP:CP for using {{ copyvio}} seem inconsistent with how said template actually works. CP says to replace the text with {{ subst:copyvio}}, while the way the template works, and as the template itself says, one is meant to put {{ subst:copyvio}} above the problematic text, and {{ copyvio/bottom}} below. -- Maddy from Celeste ( WAVEDASH) 15:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
I don't want to put this in a normal report because it concerns an entire category of not-entirely-obscure pages which have been copyvio for many long years, so I infer that something unusual might be going on such that the pages are maybe de facto protected or something, and that's out of scope for a bog-normal report. You guys figure it out.
So, every article in Category:AFI 100 Years... series is list articles, and all (I think) consist mainly of the complete lists -- 100 entries, usually. The lists were produced by the AFI, American Film Institute, based on a vote), which:
I don't know if the AFI then made a purely mechanical tabulation of votes (I'm sure they didn't legally bind themselves to have no right to tweak the list orders, so who knows how it went down) but even if so, that doesn't cancel the earlier work.
So if these aren't copyvio lists I don't know what would be. Herostratus ( talk) 05:15, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Can someone point me to legal precedent justifying our template {{ Freedom of panorama (US only)}}, under which images that would clearly be copyvio in some other country (such as France in which images of buildings are subject to the copyright of the architect) are claimed to be ok to host on Wikipedia because it respects only US copyrights? The images themselves were taken in that other country and, as such, are clearly under a non-free copyright, the copyright of the architect. Our article Berne Convention states that the US, as a participant, is required to respect the copyrights of other Berne convention countries. It has no obvious exception for "if that same image were hypothetically taken of a different building in a different country that had FOP it would not be encumbered by copyright". To me this seems as specious as "if this artwork were painted by a different person in a different country it would not be copyrighted" or "because this foreign work was not registered for copyright in the US it does not count as copyrighted" or "because we want to have images of these buildings we should be allowed to violate copyright". But I am no legal scholar, so maybe there is some subtlety that I am missing? — David Eppstein ( talk) 01:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
“ New listings are not added directly to this page but are instead on daily reports.”
Come on. Please fix this. Volunteer Marek 17:58, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
There is a discussion about copyright templates which could use some additional input. Please join in the conversation here. Primefac ( talk) 07:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, I couldn't work out the right way to report this, but someone has pasted full copyrighted lyrics at Talk:Simple Twist of Fate, in the section "third person". Regards, BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 00:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
What the title says. The page is clunky, and the actual "problems" require a decent amount of scrolling to get to. The instructions are long, not friendly to new people to begin with, and is either duplicated or contradicted in other areas. The non-listings part of this entire page is treated as basically SOP policy/guideline/guide by the community, and hosting it on what's essentially a daily "to do" list is probably not the best. So. Here's a few solutions that I thought of, others probably have better ones. These can be considered independently.
TLDR; page long, guidance should be put elsewhere. Thanks, Sennecaster ( Chat) 01:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
On the aforementioned article are multiple references using Wikia's 'nocookie.net' domain to host PDFs such as: http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/diabetesindogs/images/d/d5/Providing_care_veterinary_diabetics.pdf These do not appear to be open access journals and given what Wikia is, I believe these are illegally hosted here and I presume referencing/linking to them on Wikipedia may be a copyright issue, although I am not sure. Traumnovelle ( talk) 05:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
It seems to be de facto accepted that new articles, even those added in the last day, can be reviewed if the solution is very obvious or clear (or if the requestor is just wrong). The top of the CP page says that pages should be listed for five days before being reviewed (albeit "typically"), the {{ copyvio}} template says seven days, and in reality it seems to be "keep it there for a few days and then touch it".
Having a lot of inconsistencies is not great from an outside-perspective, so should we decide on one set timeframe for reviewing? I would be in favour of scrapping it all together or significantly reducing it (maybe two or three days), but at the very least we should decide between whether it is five or seven days. – Isochrone ( talk) 19:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Any chance of cleaning up Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2024 May 11 = June 2024 Ukraine peace summit? Until this is cleaned up, all post-infringement edits will likely be part of the revdel sequence (presumably from 10:40, 11 May 2024 to whatever the last edit is when revdel-ing), which might be annoying to people who want to know what's in the edits. This article is likely to get more attention over the next few weeks, and hit major media headlines around 15-16 June. Boud ( talk) 14:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)