THC Science

Where this user is, it is 1:33 pm, 5 June 2024 UTC [refresh].

Thank you

I've begun to do what you have said about using an off-line editor to do my editing rather than 'wikispace' to avoid copyright violations. Thank you for helping me understand that this isn't acceptable since I don't want to perform copyright violations. I do have a question: The University of Pittsburgh has given me permission to use the material on their sites describing their collections. I understand a verbal agreement amounts to no agreement at all. How do I document permission from the University to use their material?

Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 07:29, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the copyright holder wishes to release the material under license, please see the instructions at WP:Donating copyrighted materials. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tunberg photos

Hi Diannaa. I'm starting a new section because there is so much text in the other section, it's hard to follow. I'm focusing on getting you the forms you need for the WT photos.

Re the Zeller photo, we've been advised he had no children. He has a wife, and we're trying to track her down.
I understand the concept of two forms to fill out for photos of original artwork. I read https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Derivative_works, but it's not specific as to what form to fill out by the original artwork creator (I'm assuming the Declaration of consent is for the derivative, since it's a photo). What form needs to be filled out by the creator of the original artwork?
I've read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Donating_copyrighted_materials. It's confusing. You referred me to Declaration of consent of all enquiries to fill out. I'll use the wizard and choose Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported and GNU Free Documentation License, mainly because I don't know what the other licenses mean, but I think it'll be fine. There is no way to control these photos anyway, as they've been picked up by bots and are all over the internet. Where the form says "CHOOSE ONE: [URLs of the content] OR [attached images/text], [attached images/text]," I'll insert the Wikipedia address. If you'd like me to do something different, let me know.
WT and I are co-owners of the WT photos because we took the photos together. Who is the copyright holder? The person who actually pushes the button?
I'd like to use a couple of additional photos in the gallery section of the article. I don't want to give the photos to Wikipedia unless I'm assured they'll be used. Are photos allowed to be added as a COI editor without an edit request?

To summarize, I'll fill out an enquiry form for each photo and send the forms to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. How do I handle the original artwork? We're working on tracking down Artie's wife. Question re additional photos. Thanks for your help.Cstwct (talk) 18:09, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I can explain it any better than the information already available on this website and at the Commons to you but I will try. The copyright holder of a photograph is the person who actually took the photo. For each photo, the photographer has to choose a license. For the artwork, the copyright holder of the artwork has to choose a license. Both parties need to fill out the declaration of consent. There's no way to guarantee that images you upload here or to the Commons will actually be used in any articles. The images could be removed from the articles at any time by any editor. We don't always include galleries in our articles. The Commons hosts the images, and a link to the Commons category can be provided at the bottom of the article. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:41, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This simple explanation did help. Thank you.Cstwct (talk) 22:31, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa, we submitted the consent forms necessary for all photos except the Zeller photo. We should have an answer to our Zeller inquiry shortly. Thx.Cstwct (talk) 23:02, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher)@Cstwct: If you've sent in permissions emails to Commons OTRS, you can replace the c:Template:No permission since with c:Template:OTRS pending. All you need to do is go to each file's page and add {{OTRS pending}} in the |permission= parameter of c:Template:Information. What this does is give 30 days for OTRS to verify the email and make sure the licensing the copyright holder has chosen is acceptable for Commons. Whomever sent in the email should receive a reply from OTRS and this reply will contain an OTRS ticket number. Please make note of this number because it will make it easier for OTRS to find your email if there are any problems. If you have any questions about this, please post something at c:Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard. There tends to be a bit of a backlog when it comes to verifying permission emails, so it may take a little time. If 30 days have passed and the licensing for the files still has not been verified, the "OTRS pending" template will automatically revert back to "No permission since". If that happens, please ask for assistance at the OTRS noticeboard. If you plan to upload more files to Commons, please follow the instructions at c:COM:OTRS. If by chance the files are deleted, do not re-upload them; instead, go to the OTRS noticeboard and ask for assistance. Files which are deleted are not gone forever, but rather only hidden from public view. Just let OTRS or the Commons administrator who deleted the files know that you have sent in a permissions email and they will "un-delete" the files for you. You can find out which administrator deleted the file, simply by clicking on the file's link or using c:Special:Log.

Finally, one last thing about image use. I added the "Gallery" to the Turnberg article just to clean up the formatting a bit, but Diannaa is absolutely right about Wikipedia articles and galleries. Galleries tend to lean towards decorative use of images, whereas Wikipedia ideally strives for contextual use of images. The best usage of images is not simply one which shows the image (see WP:NOTGALLERY), but one which contextually ties the image to specific discussion (even better would be sourced discussion of that content) within the article content. It's actually better to place images near where they are being discussed. Articles are not intended to be places for present artist portfolios, so adding too many images might be seen as promotional. Adding/removing images is really no different from adding/removing text in that it's not really considered to be a minor edit. So, I would not advise you do any image editing due to your COI (unless it's just to tweak the formatting, etc.) and use the "request edit" template if you want to add an image to either article. As Diannaa posted, there is no real 100% guarantee when it comes to anything on Wikipedia, even images, so any image added can be removed by another editor. Proper licensing is required, but that in and of itself does not guarantee a particular file should be used. Sometimes, it's better to establish a local consensus on the article's talk page per WP:IUP#Adding images to articles and WP:CAUTIOUS before adding images. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diannaa and Marchjuly. All photos have been deleted. The only one I'll replace is the photo of WT. I wanted to remove the Gallery anyway so this is a blessing in disguise. I was trying to add images in a contextual fashion. I initially tried to place them next to the text. But you're right -- I don't want the article to look like a promotional catalog. I'll go to the OTRS noticeboard and ask to only have WT's photo put back in. I'll also ask for help in placing the OTRS template (I assume it goes on the image page but not sure). When the photos were removed, the title Gallery wasn't removed. I'll go in and delete it because now it constitutes a mistake. Thank you.Cstwct (talk) 01:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Correct correction?

Hi, User:Diannaa new to this but wanted to check on response to speedy deletion due to copyright infringement, could you look at Pablo Castro Estevez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and remove the speedy deletion tag if corrected as required or should this be requested by someone else?Mongepoche (talk) 21:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

for revdel

there maybe some eligible items here, at least according to this comment 104.163.154.161 (talk) 00:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done; thanks for reporting. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sohn Coference Wikipedia

The Sohn Conference Foundation
Hi, I would like to try again to add content to the Sohn Conference Wikipedia. Can I put up content little by little, in my own words, using the many sources I have, and at each stage you can see if I no longer am infringing on copyright rules? I believe that most of the content that was up was not even close to being "copied" and was indeed in my "own words." Perhaps there were some places where I was not careful to change the wording around enough. Please let me try again. I think overall it is a good article, describing the organization from good third party sources. Thanks. Yellowpoemelos (talk) 10:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would not have hesitated to say Yes if you had not denied that any of your work was copied from other copyright websites. Your edits were picked up as a bot as being a copyright violation, and I confirmed it using our copyvio detection tool. Regardless, I am willing to take a chance and will follow along to check your work. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmmm.

If you dump stuff on my talk page. I'd kinda hope you might have added my talk page to your watchlist. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Large scale copyvios

I have checked and it's okay now. Did some revision-deletion as well. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that Caseycad started the copyvios at the article from 2012. Do these have to be revdeled as well? Dr. K. 16:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They could be done as well, but it would mean hiding a couple thousand diffs, so I decided to do it more conservatively — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thank you again Dianna. Dr. K. 16:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This one I found a little more content to amend, and did revision deletion back to June, which is when the bulk of the copy vio occurred. Thanks for reporting. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, as always, for your tireless, and hard, work Dianna. Dr. K. 15:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Raul Escribano

Hi Diannaa. Would you mind taking a look at Raul Escribano and checking if there are any copyvios when you have a spare moment? Based upon this, it appears the article's creator is a new editor unfamiliar with Wikipedia who might be a soldier and who might have unintentionally too closing paraphrased or simply copy-and-pasted content about Escribano from official US military webpages/documents. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was copied from here, which is okay as long as proper attribution is provided. I've added the attribution and notified the user. Thanks for reporting, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Diannaa. I've never seen {{public domain}} used before. That's a nice thing to know about. How do you verify whether the origin source material has been released into the public domain for pdf files? Do you just work backwards to the main page and check the licensing there? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Marchjuly: the two easiest criteria for public-domain status in the USA include all works of the federal government (including the military, but not individual states or localities) and everything published before 1923 (anywhere in the world). That makes them legit to post here with a PD tag (of which there are many, for various specific purposes), and likewise for US-origin works on Commons (other countries have different rules, most of which are respected there). There are plenty more criteria that may apply, and it can get pretty complicated, but those two usually require the least research to identify. Beware of public-domain declarations online if the reason isn‘t apparent, because there’s a widespread misconception that it means merely publicly displayed or available: “If they didn’t want people to copy it, they wouldn’t have posted it!”—Odysseus 1479 23:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adding: I verify by going to the root page where the PDF is stored (in this case http://www.usfk.mil/) and see whose site it is. Occasionally for US military staff you will find the biography at multiple locations online as well. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk)

Thanks for all the info Odysseus1479 and Diannaa. What about WP:PLAGIARISM in these types of cases? Is it still OK to copy-and-paste verbatim public domain content into articles? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but only if properly cited: see WP:FREECOPYING and the linked family of attribution templates. OTOH there may be any number of editorial reasons to avoid it in particular cases; for example where the material has fallen out of copyright because of its age, in many subject areas it’s likely to be obsolete in the face of recent research or changing attitudes. Often the writing style will also be incompatible with the rest of the article and the ‘encylopaedic tone‘ we strive for.—Odysseus 1479 02:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yay!

Your block expires tomorrow! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeonardoIannelliCOMPUTE (talk • contribs) 20:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia Swire

Back in January, you RevDeled most of this inglorious WP:PEACOCK-a-rama as copyvio from a Daily Mail article. Apparently a different IP re-added most of the content the next day. I just ran across the article via Recent Changes and it appears to be a hodgepodge of copyvio from sources including [1]. I am not sure how best to handle the problem beyond reverting the article to your clean version from January 22 ([2]). I am willing to take the time to tease out the (relatively) original content from the plagiarized content, but given the RevDel that is going to be necessary, I don't want to create administrative work where it can be avoided, and so, before I plow into the fray, I thought I would ask for advice from an ultimate mop-wielder. Many thanks! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 22:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you have time to go ahead and clean it that would be great. Then I can do the revision deletions after, no trouble at all. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Diannaa

Thanks for your assistance on Zaha Hadid. Normally I'm loath to write things such as "the greatest" (it's often purely subjective). I knew of Hadid but had no idea of her standing in architecture, and against my normal judgement I added that line when I saw there were four other sources. The Queen of curve line I also assumed was a general term for her as opposed to something The Guardian thought up. I can see why you cleaned up both of these issues as I should attribute such a quote/opinion directly rather than assume its common knowledge. Thanks again Diannaa.— GaryGill (talk) 07:37, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When The Guardian called her the greatest, they were quoting a press release from her company. If you've got independent sources for the claim, I have no objection to it being added back. Forbes also calls her Queen of the Curve here so this might be more common than it initially appeared to me. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lag BaOmer

Thank you for taking care of the RevDel there. Given that we have had four reverted IP edits in the last two days, perhaps you'll keep an eye on the page. If we have one more, maybe SP for a week? Thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged "attack" page

I plan on doing a page for each of the Fish and Wildlife Commissioners which I don't believe have pages. These are powerful elected officials in our state. I was just trying to do a full bio. Can you make some suggestions how to clean it up? FlaGovernmentFilez (talk) 20:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please not that the St Louis Police & Airport Police Are Two Separate Departments — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tysports (talk • contribs) 21:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My edits disappeared from Buccaneer

Greetings and thanks for your dedication and work. I am very concern, however, as to why you made disappear my edits from the article. I spent several hours working on it and was now moving to add sources and continue the work I began yesterday. However, I just found out that you not only reverted my work but also made it disappear. My edits are 100% clean from plagiarism. I have taught it for 16 years and I have published a few encyclopedia articles on the topic. The links you offered in the edits summary have nothing in common with what I added but simply the topic. Please, take a look at my edits, and review your decision. Thanks. Caballero/Historiador^⎌ 01:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have got it repaired now, restoring your edits while still removing and hiding the copyright violations added by another user. Sorry for the mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:22, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response and for restoring my contributions. Cheers, Caballero/Historiador^⎌ 01:53, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Fourth Industrial Revolution page

Thanks for your feedback. The Fourth Industrial Revolution entry was my first attempt to create a Wiki page. I thought I referenced/cited accordingly, but apparently not. How can I rework to get it back up? Did the entire page need to be deleted? Some parts came directly from other Wiki pages so thought that was fine, like the history of previous industrial revolutions. Maybe I shouldn't have been so ambitious and just add a smaller section to the already existing Industry 4.0 page (although it's not exactly the same thing as the Fourth Industrial Revolution - thus the reason I felt a new page was necessary). Any tips and how to proceed would be most appreciated. Marknoa (talk) 09:46, 2 December 2016 (UTC)Marknoa[reply]

There were two kinds of copyright violations in your work; a lot of it was copied from other websites, which is a violation of the policies of this website and of copyright law. And, when you copy from one Wikipedia page to another, you need to provide attribution. While you are welcome to re-use licensed content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing requires that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying from other compatibly-licensed web pages, please at minimum mention in an edit summary at the new page where you got the content. A sample edit summary: Copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. There's more information at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. You might consider writing your article in draft space first, but the main issue was the copyright violations: Content you source to external websites needs to be thoroughly re-written, and content you import from other Wikipedia articles needs to be properly attributed. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:53, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic file

Hello, Diannaa. The source of the File:Harmandir Sahib of Amritsar at night.jpg is under a non-commercial/non-derivative license. So, it's wrongly tagged & seems unsuitable for its upload here. BTW, there are plenty of free images of this temple at the Commons. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) @NitinMlk: I tagged the file as F3 since the licence on Flickr is {{cc-by-nc-nd-2.0}}, and it has been deleted. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JJMC89: Thank you. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright question

Hi, Diannaa. I just came across an overtly promotional bio, and wonder which came first, Vito Palumbo or [3]. Perhaps you can confirm whether this is a copyright violation of the subject's website, or if the Wiki bio took precedence. Thank you, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:06, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The page has never been archived by the Wayback Machine so it's impossible to say at this point. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

World Bowls Championship

Hello Diana, What material was copyrighted please? I took the information from an existing page World Bowls Events created by a different user. I wasn't aware that I had added anything. Racingmanager (talk) 10:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The edit was picked up by a bot as being a copyright violation. While the website http://www.ashfieldbowlingclub.com.au/world_champions_93.html does have a copy of the material, I see that you did indeed move the material from the article World Bowls Events. However, apparently you did not know that when moving or copying material from one Wikipedia article to another, you need to provide attribution? This is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Please follow these important steps in the future, especially the edit summary, not only to provide the required attribution, but to help me identify content that has been moved so that false positives are easily identified when checking the bot reports. Sorry about the scary warning. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:36, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don Vaccaro

Thanks. I wasn't quite sure if it was "blatant" or not but in any case I should have used an Fnn CSD. I fear I don't do as many of these as I used to. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:08, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Thank you so much for your help. I have just created a file on wikipedia: it's a book cover. I'm trying to add it to a specific article (the one about the book), but i can't do it and i don't know why. my page about the book is still a Draft page, can i link that file to a Draft page? can you please help me? Luckyjeyne (talk)

We can't use non-free images in draft space. You are welcome to re-do the upload after the draft is accepted for publication. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GoldenTree Asset Management

Thanks for the tip Diannaa, I will create my own summary moving forward. --PeteSolica (talk) 02:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Block of user Oldyorke

This block you imposed on user Oldyorke is probably not what we should be doing. I agree 100% that this editor has been cut-and-pasting material that violates WP:COPYVIO rather explicitly. In many cases, I've fixed the problems. In many cases, I've notified the editor or used an edit summary indicating the problem. The fundamental issue here is that the editor doesn't understand the policy and doesn't read / respond to messages. Oldyorke has tried to add the required sources, but just doesn't know *HOW* to do so properly, and we have no mechanism to teach this editor.

It's annoying as hell to clean up the messes that have been created, but these are productive edits. Sure, the block meets policy but the effect is to throw out a well-meaning editor who has made a substantial number of useful edits....

... and who has simply evaded the block -- again without understanding or responding to the block -- by going back into business as the cleverly disguised Oldyorkey. Alansohn (talk) 19:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know there's 60 to 100 copyvio reports being filed at https://tools.wmflabs.org/copypatrol/en each day? Checking these reports consumes almost all of my editing time. You are welcome to attempt to mentor some or all of these users but if I try to do that too, there will be nobody to check the bot reports. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but that's the reality of it. I am opening an SPI. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oldyorke — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was no Copyright Violation on Gautama Buddha in Hinduism

Greetings Diannaa ! You removed one edit of mine on Gautama Buddha in Hinduism telling that it is a copyright violation from accesstoinsight.org. I am sorry to say but the same website issues the license and says that the content can be distributed freely. It reads like this at the bottom of the same page:

"©1982 Buddhist Publication Society. You may copy, reformat, reprint, republish, and redistribute this work in any medium whatsoever, provided that: (1) you only make such copies, etc. available free of charge and, in the case of reprinting, only in quantities of no more than 50 copies; (2) you clearly indicate that any derivatives of this work (including translations) are derived from this source document; and (3) you include the full text of this license in any copies or derivatives of this work. Otherwise, all rights reserved. Documents linked from this page may be subject to other restrictions. Transcribed from the print edition in 1995 by Bradford Griffith under the auspices of the DharmaNet Dharma Book Transcription Project, with the kind permission of the Buddhist Publication Society. Last revised for Access to Insight on 30 November 2013."

I further request you to revert yourself. Thanks for understanding. With best regards always, Terabar (talk) 20:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 220: / Line 220: @@
 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Oldyorke&diff=752537824&oldid=752481215 This block] you imposed on user Oldyorke is probably not what we should be doing. I agree 100% that this editor has been cut-and-pasting material that violates [[WP:COPYVIO]] rather explicitly. In many cases, I've fixed the problems. In many cases, I've notified the editor or used an edit summary indicating the problem. The fundamental issue here is that the editor doesn't understand the policy and doesn't read / respond to messages. Oldyorke has tried to add the required sources, but just doesn't know *HOW* to do so properly, and we have no mechanism to teach this editor.{{parabr}}It's annoying as hell to clean up the messes that have been created, but these are productive edits. Sure, the block meets policy but the effect is to throw out a well-meaning editor who has made a substantial number of useful edits....{{parabr}}... and who has simply evaded the block -- again without understanding or responding to the block -- by going back into business as the cleverly disguised Oldyorkey. [[User:Alansohn|Alansohn]] ([[User talk:Alansohn|talk]]) 19:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 :Did you know there's 60 to 100 copyvio reports being filed at https://tools.wmflabs.org/copypatrol/en each day? Checking these reports consumes almost all of my editing time. You are welcome to attempt to mentor some or all of these users but if I try to do that too, there will be nobody to check the bot reports. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but that's the reality of it. I am opening an SPI. [[:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oldyorke]] — [[User:Diannaa|Diannaa]]&nbsp;<span style="color:red">🍁</span>&nbsp;([[User talk:Diannaa|talk]]) 19:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
+== There was no Copyright Violation on [[Gautama Buddha in Hinduism]] ==
+Greetings Diannaa ! You removed one edit of mine on [[Gautama Buddha in Hinduism]] telling that it is a copyright violation from [[accesstoinsight.org]]. I am sorry to say but the same website issues the license and says that the content can be distributed freely. It reads like this at the bottom of the [http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/narada/nutshell.html#ch1 same page]:
+"©1982 Buddhist Publication Society. '''You may copy, reformat, reprint, republish, and redistribute this work in any medium whatsoever, provided that:''' ''(1) you only make such copies, etc. available free of charge and, in the case of reprinting, only in quantities of no more than 50 copies; (2) you clearly indicate that any derivatives of this work (including translations) are derived from this source document; and (3) you include the full text of this license in any copies or derivatives of this work.'' Otherwise, all rights reserved. Documents linked from this page may be subject to other restrictions. Transcribed from the print edition in 1995 by Bradford Griffith under the auspices of the DharmaNet Dharma Book Transcription Project, with the kind permission of the Buddhist Publication Society.	Last revised for Access to Insight on 30 November 2013."
+I further request you to revert yourself. Thanks for understanding. With best regards always, [[User:Terabar|Terabar]] ([[User talk:Terabar|talk]]) 20:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)