Wikisource:Possible copyright violations/Archives/2012-06

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Warning Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created on 01 June 2012, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Kept[edit]

Extemporaneous speech[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Keep, license {{PD-ineligible}} & {{PD-USGov}}. Jeepday (talk) 23:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
:::* Moved from Scriptorium, where it was becoming copyright question about specific articles, tagged articles as potential copyvio. Jeepday (talk) 12:07, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Flight 93 Transcript with CARTC, September 11th FDNY Radio Transcripts, and 9/11 Dispatcher transcript is currently marked as no license. Flight 93 Cockpit Transcript is marked with the obviously wrong PD-USGov. I'm sure there are more similar transcripts around. Extemporaneous speech does not gather a copyright normally, but if we want to make that assertion, can someone whose comfortable with the law here make an appropriate license tag for these?--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The last I checked, these were all part of the evidence collected, examined & released by the 9/11 Commission in their Final Report (which is PD-USGov by nature). I recall (fairly well) both Flight 93 related transcripts among others as being part of the Notes to Chapter 1 (ref 160 something by the FAA/NTSB) and pretty sure the other 2 were also entered as evidence & cited as such in one of the other Notes sections (but its been a couple of years since I read the report so don't hold me to those other two for sure). Anyone still have a copy lying around? The abbreviated version only cites these whereas the bundle had the full text. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually, just to clarify, PD-USGov does wash clean works that are incorporated. In other words, a copyrighted work may become evidence or otherwise incorporated into a report and would not lose its copyright. I'm not taking any position on the question itself, I haven't looked into it.--Doug.(talk contribs) 08:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Flight voice/data recorders are FAA property; not the airline's. I've dealt with the FAA memos (the transcripts) previously in smacking down various wingnuts and their double-remote-controlled-Boeing-737-rerouted-to-covert-airstrip-and-blah-blah 9/11 truther conspiracies more times than I care to remember, so I'm as close to positive as possible that PD-USGov applies to 2 if not 3 of the transcripts involving the FAA without being a lawyer. The FDNY stuff may be a different story but I doubt it - if the 9/11 Commission cites it, then I'd bet its been cleared of all names, etc. and released into PD via evidence or similar legal avenue during their investigation. -- George Orwell III (talk) 09:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't have any experience with cockpit voice/data recorders and will take your word for it. I only meant to clarify that simply putting it in a transcript that was a Gov't document wouldn't make an otherwise copyrightable work PD-Gov. I have no issues with your conclusion.--Doug.(talk contribs) 20:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep - Any of the "private" individuals here would have long waived any expectation of copyright kowning full well they were certified, sanctioned and engaged in a Federal-run enterprise based in serving the public at large on a near daily basis. Sure pilots work for & get paid by private airlines but they are certified, authorized and regulated by the government to be able to do that work in the first place. The ideas that interaction with FAA controllers or other federal entities can ever be considered private or creative seems absurd to me.

    Everybody else remaining in question here is directly an employee of the Federal government or deputized as one under a declared national emergency retroactively. The same law establishing the Commission based on that level of state at the time would seem to trump any notion of anything we're currently hosting as being remotely copyrightable. Even the means of first fixation (frequencies, 9-1-1 calls) fall under Federal jurisdiction. -- George Orwell III (talk) 13:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

In general, extemporaneous speech is {{PD-ineligible}} in the U.S. (since it is not fixed in any medium). Sound recordings can have their own copyright -- separate people could make recordings of over-the-air pilot chatter, and each would have a separate copyright to their own recording. It is separate from the copyright of the content itself, though obviously if the content is copyrighted, you'd need permission of that copyright owner for distribution. The FAA typically makes their own recordings, so those would be PD-USGov. I'm not sure the FAA ever releases the actual cockpit voice recordings, but transcripts are separate from the recording itself, and I can't imagine there is much copyright over those (though FAA transcripts would again be PD-USGov, if there is actually a copyright on transcriptions -- I think court reporters have claimed such in the past, but I'm not sure if that would hold after Feist v Rural). There should be no copyright on the data from a flight data recorder, either, I'd guess -- though that would be FAA-owned anyways, pe George Orwell III's comment above. I can't see a serious problem with keeping the mentioned works. Although I would keep PD-USGov as well on any transcript coming from the federal government -- just to be safe (and as that includes some translation from Arabic, there could be copyrightable arguments on the translation otherwise). Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Gazetteer[edit]

The following discussion is closed: 1884 works are PD, the modern introduction would be under copyright. If a 1884 source can not be located, User:William Maury Morris II as volunteered to assist on removing the non PD portions of modern source. Jeepday (talk) 22:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
A new user has asked [1] [2] about bringing this 1884 publication (13th in series) to Wikisource. Without doubt the 1884 work is public domain. The available source is a retyped 1999 PDF by the Government of Haryana, (administrative district of India) which has claimed a copyright. {{PD-INGov}} does not appear to cover the 3 introductory pages of the work, so the first 3 page would seem to copyrighted. The question is the retyping and conversion to etext (PDF) sufficient to create a copyright on the republished work, or does the 1884 publication remain PD in the new format? Jeepday (talk) 10:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Additionally should the consensus of PD be reached, technical assistance in loading only PD portions of the PDF to Wikisource are requested by User:Vishal14k. Jeepday (talk) 10:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't think the retyping & conversion count for copyright; at least not under United States law. It is similar to the case a year or so ago when the National Portrait Gallery (UK) claimed copyright on the photographs on its website (which had been uploaded to Commons) because of the effort put into creating them. US law does not support "sweat of the brow" as creating a new copyright for public domain works. (NB: UK law allows a 25-year copyright for typography and there's a chance the same holds for India. That still does not affect Wikisource, of course.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 15:38, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Still, the preface to the reprint is copyrighted, so the PDF can't be uploaded to Commons or here unless someone knows a way of cutting it out of the PDF. It would be better if we could find a copy of the original, not only for copyright reasons but also to make sure any typos in the reprint—or silent corrections of typos in the original!—don't get copied over. Angr 17:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
"...unless someone knows a way of cutting it out of the PDF." IF someone wants a .PDF taken apart contact me on my talk page. I will take the pdf file apart, remove any modern introduction, and put the pdf file back together again. OFTEN, someone writes an introduction and then adds it to the beginning of an old book and claims "copyright" but only the modern portion is under copyright, not the original text. However, the supposed "original text" can be salted—heavily salted. Retypng and conversion makes no difference. It is not a copyright. Still, in reading and replying to this I am reminded of the Encyclopedia that has several false entries in it. Kindest regards to all, Maury (—William Maury Morris II Talk 19:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Deleted[edit]

2007 Molly Ivins Award Acceptence Speech[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted.--Jusjih (talk) 10:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
No indication of PD status on this unlicensed speech by Political and sports commentator Author:Keith Olbermann. Jeepday (talk) 10:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Barack Obama's Announcement to Run for U.S. President[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Delete, Pending expected future release to PD. Jeepday (talk) 00:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
There is no notice of the copyright being released on this speech. By its nature it pre-dated Obama's election as President and it isn't part of his duties as a Senator so I don't think it counts under PD-USGov. Some similar works have been deleted in the past, such as Barack Obama's Iraq Speech. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete— for now. Once President Obama is out of office and his Presidential Library is established by the National Archives, most of these non-commercial works created along the timeline leading up to & thru his election to our highest office will be waived into the public domain for good as is the case with other recent Administrations. We can easily restore it then. -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:PD-PRC-banned[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted, Not used on any works, unclear period (if any) that it would be correct. May serve as a foundation for restored or new version with specific effective dates. Jeepday (talk) 00:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
This was current in the Communist China before 2010 per Section 1 of Article 4 of the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China (2001), replaced by Article 4 of the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China (2010) that stops excluding banned works from copyright protection, retroactively applicable per Section 1 of Article 60 of the 2010 Law. This copyright license must be abolished here, and Chinese Wikisource is also abolishing it as obsolete.--Jusjih (talk) 15:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Hmm. I'm not completely sure it is retroactive -- here is the amendment actually passed in 2010, which doesn't mention anything about bringing past works back into copyright. Article 61 seems to state the effective date is June 1, 1991, so it perhaps meant retroactive as of that date only. Is there any additional evidence that the 2010 change was retroactive? On the other hand I guess the previous Article 4 just said such works were not protected, not that the copyright had expired -- that may be enough of a difference, in that the copyright may have existed but simply not been enforceable, but now it is. Carl Lindberg (talk) 09:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
For works published before 1996, they wouldn't have been restored by the URAA. After that, I'm not sure that this license was applicable in the US anyway.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
That's a good point. The U.S. would protect works eligible under U.S. rules even if they were banned in China. So, at most this would apply to works published before March 1, 1989 without a copyright notice. Secondly, the URAA restores a work which is not in the public domain in its source country through expiration of term of protection; this may not count as "expiration", so the URAA might have restored such works anyways. Not sure on that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Charter 08[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted license and work, license no longer valid. License Currently not used on any other works. Jeepday (talk) 23:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
As Template:PD-PRC-banned is obsolete as of 2010, I am afraid that we can no longer keep it here for no acceptable copyright license for the original Chinese version, even when the English translator uses GFDL. Chinese Wikisource excludes this work.--Jusjih (talk) 15:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The Manifesto of Surrealism[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Delete, Probable copyright, status unclear. PD not shown. Jeepday (talk) 23:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Original: A French publication from 1924 and the author died in 1966. If there was no US registration, then I think this will be under copyright per the URAA. I found this (Google Books link) in 1925 under "A—Foreign 26566" but I'm not sure if that counts. I can't find a renewal for it if it does.

Translation: Unknown at the moment. It might be a modern translation and released under a compatible licence. This does not matter, however, if the original is still under copyright. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 15:16, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

  • comment - I was always under the impression that A--Foreign ###### became AF###### at some point in history. A search for AF26566 does come up with a hit, has French components listed with it, mentions translation and was registered soon after the time of the author's death by chance - but no solid match. Leaning delete based on the findings so far. -- George Orwell III (talk) 17:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Copyright status can't be verified, but I'd suggest very like to be copyright under URAA. --Aplomb (talk) 20:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Why wouldn't that count? I don't know about the translation or renewal, but that certainly looks like a US registration.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Even if there was a registration, it may still have been restored by the URAA -- that restored works regardless if they were originally registered or not; i.e. it also remedied situations where the author forgot to renew, as well as ones where notice was forgotten. The only way it wouldn't be restored is if the book was published in the U.S. within 30 days of it being published in France, and thus qualified as a "U.S. work". A registration a year after being published in France probably indicates it probably came later in the U.S., and was thus eligible for restoration. Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Public Fried Chicken[edit]

The following discussion is closed: speedily deleted — billinghurst sDrewth 14:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Living author, cursory Google search suggests it is an written work originally published here some time in the near past. Prosody (talk) 21:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Speedy Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. Carl Lindberg (talk) 10:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Saint george and the dragon[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Speedy deleted WS:CSD G6, JeepdaySock (talk) 10:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
The only source I could find for this page is this, where it is stated: All the materials on these pages are free for educational use only. You may not redistribute, sell or place the content of this page on any other website or blog without written permission from Mandy Barrow, Woodlands Junior School. Should this be deleted?--Mpaa (talk) 18:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
I think so. No evidence it's in scope, and evidence it's under copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The Diary of Jack the Ripper[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted, if it is an original work first published in 1993 copyright term is extending to at least through 2047. Jeepday (talk) 23:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I have deleted this in response to a speedy deletion request by User:Ronhjones citing OTRS ticket #2012052210005225. Details are at Talk:The Diary of Jack the Ripper.

I did so because it seemed like the prudent thing to do in light of what appears to be a credible legal threat. I have no particular opinion on the merits of the claim, and have no objection to the community over-ruling me and restoring the article.

Hesperian 00:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

If this is a work of the 1880s (when JtR was murdering), I would not think that the work is under copyright even in the UK, and it definitely isn't in the United States. Cornell clearly allows 120 years, so works written before 1892, and I am pretty certain that the UJ (if it mattered to how we have hosted) is less. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
To note that this did get discussed previously … /Archives/2010-09#The_Diary_of_Jack_the_Ripper. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I can only quote from the (claimed) copyright holder "the original handwritten and transcribed texts published within the book The Diary of Jack the Ripper in 1993, as is clearly shown in the verso-title page of all published copies of The Diary of Jack the Ripper" - I take it from that statement that although they may have been written way back, they were not actually published until 1993 - that to me seems to agree with this en-Wiki page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Maybrick Ronhjones (talk) 21:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
If this was first published in 1993, it's still under U.S. copyright, no matter when it was created. Works created before 1978 but first published 1978-2002 have a copyright term extending to at least through 2047, even if it is more than 120 years from creation. And if a modern work, of course it's still under copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
If it was first legally published in 1993, it's still under US copyright. If the heirs of James Maybrick didn't approve the printing, then it wasn't legally published. Of course, I think it's pretty clear that it's a modern forgery.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
True, good point. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Secret Meeting with Taliban group member and Iraqi government[edit]

The following discussion is closed: delete, no clear rationale for PD, nothing suggested. Jeepday (talk) 14:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Secret Meeting with Taliban group member and Iraqi government and unlicensed doc File:Pakistan dayplanner.jpg, unclear rational for for PD JeepdaySock (talk) 16:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Works by Author:Ayman al-Zawahiri[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Delete, unclear copyright status. no indication of PD Jeepday (talk) 10:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Of the listed works only Fourth Zawahiri interview with as-Sahab has a license ({{PD-release}}) though the rational for the license is unclear. All would seem to be copyright for present. Jeepday (talk) 22:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Other works on by author

Works by Author:Kwame Kilpatrick[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Delete, unclear copyright status. no indication of PD Jeepday (talk) 10:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
The first one is a letter by the subject, no indication of release. The other two are court documents filed by the subject and attorneys for both sides, I am not aware of any license they would fall under for PD status without a release also. Not sure there is any reason to keep the page Author:Kwame Kilpatrick if these works are deleted. Jeepday (talk) 11:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar- Letter to The daily Tar Heel[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Delete, unclear copyright status. no indication of PD Jeepday (talk) 10:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
No indication of PD release for this letter to a news paper, content indicates permission for the paper to publish but not PD release. Not sure that Author:Mohammed Reza Taheri-Azar needs to stay if this work is deleted. Jeepday (talk) 11:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The Half Closed Eyes and the Setting Sun[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Delete, unclear copyright status. no indication of PD Jeepday (talk) 10:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Unlicensed translation of a 1975 work, Original and translation would both seem to by Copyvio. Wikipedia and Wikisource both have claims of notability and published works so presumably Author:Shankar Lamichhane could stay pending discover of PD works (PD works seem likely given claims of authorship and 1930 birth year). Jeepday (talk) 12:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The Agpeya[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Delete, unclear copyright status. no indication of PD Jeepday (talk) 10:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
The original material is probably PD-old but the edition information on the talk page states that this is a 1981 English translation. Without any kind of release, this is almost certainly still under copyright. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Fitin to Dimitrov, 29 September 1944[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Delete, unclear copyright status. no indication of PD Jeepday (talk) 10:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
There are potentially several issues with. It claims to be a secret document written from a soviet officer (Author:Pavel Fitin) to a Bulgarian Communist leader. There is no indication of source, or translator (assuming it was not written in English), and of course has no licensing or PD release. Looks like the letter gets deleted as a copyvio and the author page as out of scope. There is no indication of any published works by w:Pavel Fitin. Jeepday (talk) 19:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The Conscript[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Delete, unclear copyright status. no indication of PD Jeepday (talk) 10:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Poem by H. P. Lovecraft. It appears be an early work, written around 1917-8, but I can find no evidence that it was published at that time. hplovecraft.com gives the first publication as 1977 while the Internet Speculative Fiction Database gives it as 2001. I think the former is more likely, but that still puts it under copyright, possibly until 2072. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
If first published in 1977, copyrighted until 2073, if first published in 2001, then copyrighted until 2048. Symbol delete vote.svg Delete either way. We would need to find publication at least prior to 1964 I'd guess, or evidence of first publication in 2003 or later, to keep it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Brother Sister[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Delete, unclear copyright status. no indication of PD Jeepday (talk) 10:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Original is a 1936 Finnish work, that may have lapsed into PD (or not). Our version is a 2006 translation of that work, which would presumably be under copyright for a a long time to come. The only reference I found online is at http://www.peacehost.net/FinnLabor/VeliSisko.htm . Per Wikipedia this is the only work of note by Author:Elsa Rautee, no reason to keep the author page if this work is deleted. Jeepday (talk) 15:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Wickstrom.pdf[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Delete, Unable to show PD status for work. Jeepday (talk) 10:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
I had assumed this work would be {{PD-USGov}} as a contracted work of the US government. But on closer review I notice this statement at the bottom "This document may not be reproduced other than in full, except with the prior written approval of SP". Does {{PD-USGov}} apply and if so does it trump the statement by SP? Jeepday (talk) 17:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Bit more complicated than that. See w:Copyright status of work by the U.S. government#Works produced by contractors and FAR 27.404-3. Without knowing otherwise, presume copyright and delete. Prosody (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
further comment One could say that the report has been included in full so with the pdf reproduction it meets that requirement, though that may restrict our reproducing it from the text. Either way, I do not see that there is any special provision for its retention at enWS, it is either in the public domain and should be at Commons, or it is not, and it should be deleted. Move it to Commons, and see what the opinions there do with it. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I think it is obviously a public record, but that does not imply full copyright. I doubt it is a work for hire; I think I would guess it's copyrighted and therefore Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

A Girl[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Delete, unclear copyright status. no indication of PD Jeepday (talk) 10:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Unlicensed work with no source given. Searches on Google only find WS versions. Listed as a work of Author:Alexander Moissi who per w:Aleksandër Moisiu is a stage actor, not a writer. Best guess makes it a partial translation of a play the actor was in. Unable to show PD for the original, the translation is of course even more problematic. Should this work be deleted no reason to keep the author page. Jeepday (talk) 11:48, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I think I found the source (or a source) here; a posting on an Albanian mailing list. It seems to give a little bit of provenance, but very little, and it sounds like they do not know the original work. There are a couple of untranslated German words in there, but putting even just those into Google Books comes up with basically no hits. Sounds like the whole thing is a big unknown. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The Challenges of Modern War[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Delete, Delete, unclear copyright status. no indication of PD or edict Jeepday (talk) 10:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Unlicensed speech by Author:John Reid "The speech given by John Reid MP, British Defence Secretary, on the challenges facing British troops in the modern theatre of war; in response to a recent scandal over the behaviour of British soldiers. Given to King's College, London on 20 February 2006." Source is a news article, so no support for PD there. Jeepday (talk) 12:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Chronology of Mahatma Gandhi's life[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Delete, PD not shown. Jeepday (talk) 22:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
It appears to be an original work of Ministry of Information & Broadcasting. Looking at {{PD-INGov}} and w:Copyright law of India, it seems this would not be public domain in India until 60 years after publication, and not until later in US. The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi first began publishing in 1960. So yeah. Prosody (talk) 15:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Looks like a clear delete for copyvio per Prosody, We would need the copyright status and source to define when the work would bedcome PD. Unsure what the reference "and not until later in US" implies for the license {{PD-India}} Jeepday (talk) 00:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
By that I meant for this particular work that since it wasn't public domain in India at the URAA cutoff and wasn't published in the United States as far as I can tell, it's publication+95 in the US. I don't think that means we should get rid of {{PD-India}} and other non-US country specific tags--while all works here have to be PD in the United States, it's useful for readers in the country of origin or countries which recognize the rule of the shorter term to determine if it's PD in their country. Prosody (talk) 10:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC) (revised 10:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC))

Other[edit]

A Cup of Coffee[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Replaced copyvio translation with 1922 version Jeepday (talk) 23:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I need a check on A Cup of Coffee. According to [3] this translation was published in 1971 in Slovenia, so I think is copyvio.

In case, there is another version here that could be used (from Overland Monthly 1922), so instead of deleting the page we could just swap the translation. --Mpaa (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the translation is a problem. That other version should be fine though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Replaced with the other version. This can be closed, I guess.--Mpaa (talk) 21:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)