Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2012-05

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Kept

Multiple from Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Pages with no licence

Latest comment: 12 years ago173 comments5 people in discussion

The following discussion is closed:

The following cases are closed with licenses applied. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed:

The following cases are closed with licenses applied. Jeepday (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed:

The following cases are closed with licenses applied.Jeepday (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed:

The following cases are closed with licenses applied. Jeepday (talk) 11:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed:

The following cases are closed with licenses applied. Jeepday (talk) 12:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed:

These have had license added. Jeepday (talk) 12:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

All of these "Authors" have speeches in/to legislative bodies as their main content. My thought would be license as {{copyright author}} and submit the works (if any) on Wikisource to WS:CV for potential delete. Previous discussions at WS:CV have not supported the use of {{PD-EdictGov}} for speeches. Jeepday (talk) 15:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed:

All closed License on mainspace. Jeepday (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Multiple from Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Empty pages

Latest comment: 12 years ago16 comments2 people in discussion

The following discussion is closed:

{{Move to Wikimedia Commons}} & {{PD-old}} JeepdaySock (talk) 15:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Unlicensed poem (1885) used on Poem Written to his Jailer. Should be licensed (if appropriate) and moved to commons. Jeepday (talk) 00:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed:

{{Move to Wikimedia Commons}} & {{PD-old}} JeepdaySock (talk) 15:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Unlicensed document used on The Macedonian question, Should be licensed (if appropriate) and moved to commons. Jeepday (talk) 00:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed:

PD-old & {{Move to Wikimedia Commons}} JeepdaySock (talk) 15:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Unlicensed document used on Mayflower Compact (1620), Should be licensed (if appropriate) and moved to commons. Jeepday (talk) 00:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed:

{{PD-USGov}} & {{Move to Wikimedia Commons}}. JeepdaySock (talk) 14:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Unlicensed document used on 8-6-2001 Presidential Briefing, Should be licensed (if appropriate) and moved to commons. Jeepday (talk) 00:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Unlicensed document used on 8-6-2001 Presidential Briefing, Should be licensed (if appropriate) and moved to commons. Jeepday (talk) 00:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed:

{{PD-1923}} {{Move to Wikimedia Commons}} JeepdaySock (talk) 16:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Unlicensed document used on Index:Spirella Accessories 1913 Should be licensed (if appropriate) and moved to commons. Jeepday (talk) 11:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Unlicensed document used on Index:Spirella Accessories 1913 Should be licensed (if appropriate) and moved to commons. Jeepday (talk) 11:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Unlicensed document used on Index:Spirella Accessories 1913 Should be licensed (if appropriate) and moved to commons. Jeepday (talk) 11:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Unlicensed document used on Index:Spirella Accessories 1913 Should be licensed (if appropriate) and moved to commons. Jeepday (talk) 11:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed:

{{PD-EdictGov}}, {{PD-UN}} & {{Move to Wikimedia Commons}} JeepdaySock (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Unlicensed document used on Talk:Agreement relating to Malaysia between United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Federation of Malaya, North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore/supplementary agreement Should be licensed (if appropriate) and moved to commons. Jeepday (talk) 11:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 12 years ago14 comments4 people in discussion

The following discussion is closed:

Keep, no consensus for delete. Discussion involved only two editors, without the wider community contributing. Jeepday (talk) 10:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Way back at Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2011-12#A Short Biographical Dictionary of English Literature/Johnson, Samuel, I put forward the proposition that the subpage space of a work should be reserved for the actual content of that work, and it is not okay for us to inject our own novel navigational aids into a work's subpage space. Yes we should do what we can to help the reader to find what they are looking for; yes disambiguation pages and redirects are valuable; but they are our work, not part of the works we are representing, and therefore should not be placed within the subpage space of works. On those grounds the disambiguation page at A Short Biographical Dictionary of English Literature/Johnson, Samuel was deleted.

I'd like to take this principle a step further and nominate for deletion all of the recently bot-created redirects in Category:Obituaries in Popular Science Monthly; for example, Popular Science Monthly/Volume 40/April 1892/Obituary: John Couch Adams. The obituary of John Couch Adams is given in a paragraph of Popular Science Monthly/Volume 40/April 1892/Notes and Obituary Notes, and on this basis the former has been made to redirect to the latter. I fully support efforts to make the obituary of John Couch Adams easy to find: it should be properly categorised, linked from Author:John Couch Adams, etc. I would have no objection to the creation of a redirect from the non-subpage titles Obituary: John Couch Adams and/or Obituary of John Couch Adams. But by creating redirects deep in the subpage space of the PSP project, we inject our own novel navigational structures into our representation of the original work. The redirect is an attempt to value-add our site by helping readers to find material; it is not an attempt to represent the work itself, it does not represent the work itself, there is nothing in the structure of the work itself that suggests the redirect... and therefore it should not be embedded within the work's subpage space.

Hesperian 13:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. If I understood correctly, the objection is about the name of the of the redirect page (e.g. Popular Science Monthly/Volume 40/April 1892/Obituary: John Couch Adams), that is the creation of a subpage in the PSM space which was not intended to be there, not the idea of the redirect itself. If this is the case, in choosing the name, I followed a suggestion made at Wikisource:Scriptorium#Multiple_sort_keys_.26_Categories, which I might have misinterpreted. Anyhow, I have no objections in finding a new solution.

The goal I was trying to achieve is exactly what you stated above: "The redirect is an attempt to value-add our site by helping readers to find material". What is the purpose of proofreading the whole PSM without giving to the reader an easy way to access its material? Now in Category:Obituaries in Popular Science Monthly and Category:Obituaries it is straightforward to search for obituaries for persons. Without such redirects, it would be much more difficult. So, to summarise, I have no objections in exploring a new way to achieve such goal avoiding my "attempt to represent the work itself" but I still feel the need of an easy access and of the presence of this info in both categories, as this is the advantage of having PSM on a wiki instead of keeping it in scans. --Mpaa (talk) 14:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I see that you have followed Billinghurst's suggestion. I strongly disagree with what Billinghurst suggested to you. What function does a redirect from Popular Science Monthly/Volume 40/April 1892/Obituary: John Couch Adams serve? Will people be searching for an article that does not exist? Those who want to find an obituary of John Couch Adams will not be searching on volume and issue, so this redirect does not help them any more than Obituary: John Couch Adams would. Those who already know the volume and issue in which the obituary will be found do not need our help. Hesperian 05:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
My goal is to provide people the possibility to quickly find information (and this is useful only for those who do not know …). So if all Obituaries, from different sources, are categorised in proper categories, it would be very quick to find them. Imagine someone who is searching info on John Doe. Probably he does not even know what PSM is. But he can go into a Category and there he will find a point of access to all publications where John Doe's obituary is present, including PSM. Wouldn't this be helpful? And a redirect is easy to be done and categorised. I have no preference at all about the name of such redirect page but I think a page of this kind should exist. If Obituary: John Couch Adams, or something else, is a better solution, I do not have objections in going for it. It does not necessarily need to be placed into the PSM structure to serve the purpose.--Mpaa (talk) 08:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
These obituaries commonly include multiple people and do not list names in their titles. This makes them unsuitable for categorization. The solution is not to fabricate non-existent article titles and categorize them instead. I think the solution is to create a list at Wikisource:Obituaries. Hesperian 11:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, so you have revised your initial view in your first post, where you said you would not object to creation of a redirect from a non-subpage title. I was following that line of reasoning. What you are saying applies in my view to almost all obituaries. They are all excerpts of broader works, usually magazines or papers. See for example: British Medical Journal/1924/John William King Mullen. To me this looks more or less the same situation as in PSM. The difference being that I just made a redirect without touching the work context instead of transcluding the text in a specific article. I am not going to make a big issue if you want to delete them but my opinion that we should seek ways to have a uniform approach on this subject and make life easy for those who seek info. Bye--Mpaa (talk) 12:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I am starting to have second thoughts on whether that is a good idea to have these redirects even in root space. Do we really want to start creating redirects from collections of search terms? Would we as a community support the creation of a redirect from Mark Twain Huck Finn? I think not. Hesperian 00:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I would suggest the redirect Popular Science Monthly/Volume 40/April 1892/Obituary: John Couch Adams be moved to Obituary: John Couch Adams or John Couch Adams obituary (or similar), and have it listed at Portal:Obituaries. The redirect would be a likely search term (or shortcut) and would no longer imply the prior existence of an article in the April 1892 issue of Popular Science Monthly with the title "Obituary: John Couch Adams". It would also make reading Category:Obituaries in Popular Science Monthly a little easier (the category itself can remain as it is). Adding the appropriate 18XX works categories to the redirects might also help but that is not important at this stage.
That makes four different ways to navigate to the file (search, category, portal, browsing). For additional navigational aids: if Adams was an author, then Author:John Couch Adams makes sense as well; if not, and there are more Adams-related texts available, Portal:John Couch Adams is a possibility. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Digging a bit more, I found other examples where a similar approach to the one used in PSM and British Medical Journal has been adopted in other publications, see e.g. Folk-Lore/Volume_27/Obituary/Sir_John_Rhys and Folk-Lore/Volume 27/Obituary/Sir George Laurence Gomme. Also here, a section/pages of the magazines have been divided into separate obituary articles. So the objection from Hesperian should apply also to such publications. --Mpaa (talk) 00:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I do not understand your comment. Folk-Lore/Volume_27/Obituary/Sir_John_Rhys is not a redirect. The most I can say about this example is it should have been named Folk-Lore/Volume_27/Obituaries/Rt. Hon. Sir John Rhys in order to be perfectly consistent with the structure of the original work. Hesperian 01:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I meant that in Folklore a single page has been arbitrarily splitted (see Page:Folk-lore_-_A_Quarterly_Review._Volume_27,_1916.djvu/139). There was no such article in the magazine, it was arbitrarily created. It is the same, IMHO, as if I splitted the PSM Obituary article in several subpages, injecting my view on the work, as you say. I have virtually splitted with a redirect but the philosophy behind is the same. --Mpaa (talk) 01:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC) Addition: this is referred to Folk-Lore/Volume 27/Obituary/Sir George Laurence Gomme, where it is more obvious. --Mpaa (talk) 01:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
It has a rule divider and a heading, so the split is not arbitrary. This might not be how you or I would choose to structure the subpages, but I accept it as a good-faith attempt to make the subpage structure as useful as possible, while still conforming to the structure of the work. This situation is completely different to the creation of redirects that pretend to be sections of a work when in fact no such sections exist. Hesperian 03:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Obviously I have not been able to convince you. Most of the obituaries are small excerpts of wider parts. We could discuss hours on what is the "typographical" limit of acceptance to split an article. I also wonder how scans from The Times pages look, from where tens of small obituary articles have been derived. But let's put a stop to the discussion. If you do not like the redirect concept as a pointer to information, delete it. I am still on my ground that we are transferring a huge knowledge base here with little advantage vs. having it on scans or pdf files if we do not make use of the difference between a wiki and a file. Bye--Mpaa (talk) 10:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


Deleted

List of Jewish deportees from Norway during World War II

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The following discussion is closed:

Moved to w:List of Jewish deportees from Norway during World War II there is no indication of previous life on Wikipedia, multiple references so should be acceptable there. Jeepday (talk) 16:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

This list has been created from several copyright sources and doesn't seem to be appropriate to host here. I think it belongs on Wikipedia but wanted to check first. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree that the list is not appropriate for our mainspace though I'm not sure any CopyVio has actually taken place. It's not 100% certain that the bulk if not all of the list was copied word-for-word from a single source or was compiled & created with the current layout for the first time from several sources, etc., by the contributing User: (& I'm guessing it is the latter - making it unacceptable for Wikipedia re: original research). That said, It might be enough to just move the list to a subpage of the User-space rather than whack it completely from here. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Multiple from Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Pages with no licence

Latest comment: 12 years ago30 comments3 people in discussion

The following discussion is closed:

The following cases resulted in deletion. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed:

The following cases are closed and deleted.Jeepday (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed:

Deleted, no response rational or reason to keep provided by uploader, unlicensed and unused. Jeepday (talk) 23:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Posted a note at w:User_talk:EdwinHJ#Wikisource for thoughts on disposition of two. Jeepday (talk) 12:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed:

The following cases are closed and deleted or take to other board for deletion consideration. Jeepday (talk)

File:The Oxford Book of English Verse, 1250-1900 (1906).djvu

Latest comment: 12 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted, Scan is incomplete and/or has uploading issues, as such is not appropriate for WS in current condition. There is also a question of copyright, which has not been fully addressed. Jeepday (talk) 10:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

This seems to be the 1906 printing. We already have the 1931 printing at File:Oxford Book of English Verse 1250-1900.djvu (commons) and I'm not sure we need this impression as I can discern no content difference. If we are going to keep it, then it has several print pages missing and these will need to be found. Uploader has been notified of this discussion. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The last scanned page is numbered 1084 yet the entire djvu is only 1065 pages. Something doesn't jibe so leaning delete pending further discussion. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Leaning to delete too, though the reasoning for the licencing is interesting. I am wondering why the Don't move to Commons applies, and if it does apply how that effects the 1931 edition. I will presume that any pages that can be resurrected from this version will be so. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
fwiw.... If you follow the links to Archive.org's (cited as the source) frontpage, you'll see a blurb from 2 or 3 days ago claiming Google recently changed the viewing status (back?) to restricted (I can view the file on GoogleBooks just fine - U.S.A. proper here - though). I'm not sure what to make of the 'don't move' reasoning either way as well. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I suspect that the "don't move" is about Quiller-Couch's date of death (1944). 1944 + 70 years = 2014. But he's the editor and not the author of the work. Does this make a difference? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
He's the author of the preface, which is incomplete but partially present in this DJVU. Angr 17:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I've read an argument from a US lawyer that under w:Feist v. Rural and similar rulings, editors of novels and music and whatnot would have no copyright protection. Even if that's the case, Quiller-Couch did make creative choices in choosing which poems went into this anthology, and that would be protected for his life, even without the preface.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:35, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Report of Van Fleet mission to the Far East

Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted, out of scope, incomplete work. Complete work would be in scope. Jeepday (talk) 10:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

This work appears to be an excerpt of the report rather than a complete text. It also has no source of any kind and I have not been able to find a copy online so far. This came up via Wikisource:Requests for assistance, with this request:

Hi, I'm an en.wiki editor and admin. While reviewing and editing a page on en.wiki ([1]) I came here to look at what was indicated was the wikisource copy of that document, Report of Van Fleet mission to the Far East). However, after looking at it, I became confused...and realized that the document is not what it claims to be. Rather, it is only an excerpt of that report. Note the "Contents" section which shows 18 sections in the original document, then note the rest of the information--it covers only 1 section of that article (section 13). Why? Well, because that section is a reference cited by the Korean government in making arguments relating to a territorial dispute. Now, I don't know anything about Wikisource's procedures, or inclusion criteria, but this concerns me. First, if the article is kept the way it is, can it some way be re-labeled as an excerpt? Second, I'm concerned about the accuracy of the information--given that it was copied (I am fairly certain) only for the purposes of advancing this specific argument, I'm worried that 1) other parts of the document may have conflicting information, and 2) I'm not even comfortable extending AGF (en.wiki policy) to what is there being accurately copied. Within the confines of Wikisource's policy, what is the appropriate procedure? Qwyrxian (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Excerpts have been deleted in the past and there is a chance this has been edited, or at least sections may have been cherry-picked, to support a particular point of view rather than a complete, accurate text. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

comment tending towards delete as it is a scrap without source, though I think that we could see if Dominic is able to know if NARA has scans available. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Agree. The document exists in the Eisenhower Presidential Library catalog if that makes any difference Box2 items 8 thru 15 (waiting for a reply from them in the meantime too) -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article is properly cited. And a part of the section (4. Ownership of Dokto Island) is verifiable online at the Japanese government site. Please note that there is no policy to delete an article simply because it is not verifiable online. Moreover if an article is easily available online, the article has no existence value as an article in Wikisource. Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
The issue now is not so much that it is not properly cited (anymore) but the fact that it is an excerpt. When there is no source document uploaded to transcribe and proofread against, an excerpt such as this does not meet the Wikisource (not Wikipedia) standards for hosting. The solution is to locate a full copy, upload it and then proofread its transcraption against that upload in the mainspace. In short, an excerpt such as this doesn't "cut it" here whereas its ok at times on Wikipedia & their articles. -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Certidão de Batismo - Senador Pinheiro Machado.jpg

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted, unlicensed and unclear significance. Jeepday (talk) 10:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what this is, other then it is 1948 work. I am assuming it will qualify for some type of PD license, if so does it move to Commons or some other language WS? (Assuming we do not want to create a WS translation.) Jeepday (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete. Being in Portuguese, it's certainly out of our scope, and without more information about what it is (somebody's baptismal certicate, yes, but of unclear significance) I don't see that it's much use to Commons either. The uploader has made no edits to en-ws other than uploading this image. Angr 16:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Mirabeau lettre.jpg

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The following discussion is closed:

Delete, out of scope. Jeepday (talk) 10:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what this is. feels like it should be licensed {{PD-old}}. I am assuming it will qualify for some type of PD license, if so does it move to Commons or some other language WS? (Assuming we do not want to create a WS translation.) Jeepday (talk) 17:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete. Being in French, it's certainly out of our scope, and without more information about what it is I don't see that it's much use to Commons either. Sherurcij left all Wikimedia projects in a huff about two years, so he's unlikely to come back and tell us what he uploaded it for. I looked through his contributions at about the same time as he uploaded this, but I still couldn't figure out how he wanted to use it. Angr 16:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


Other

Temporarily undelete Biography of Guo Jia

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The following discussion is closed:

Self published work. Deleted. (again) -- George Orwell III (talk) 14:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Kamek98 uploaded an original work, it got deleted, and they don't have any local saved copies. Could someone temporarily undelete it so they can recover it? Thanks! Prosody (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Content recovered to User:Kamek98's front page. Please tag for speedy delete when done. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Multiple from Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Pages with no licence

Latest comment: 12 years ago10 comments2 people in discussion

The following discussion is closed:

The following cases are closed as deleted, or moved to portal space. Jeepday (talk) 12:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Not a published author so {{copyright author}} not appropriate. All the works listed are about the subject. Potentially a portal subject or sub-subject? Jeepday (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Portal:Abdullah Khadr - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed:

The following have been closed as licensed or move to portal. Jeepday (talk) 15:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed:

The following have been checked, and do not indicate the presence of unlicensed content to address, merely the discussion of {{no license}} in general or other specific unlicensed content on other pagers Jeepday (talk) 12:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Included for completeness.

User

Wikisource

Categories

Help


Multiple from Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Empty pages

Latest comment: 12 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion

The following discussion is closed:

Posted at Wikisource:Possible_copyright_violations#Template:EUCopyright for License compatibility validation, out come there will lead to solution for this. JeepdaySock (talk) 15:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Used on Memorandum of Understanding on Cooperation between the Financial Supervisory Authorities, Central Banks and Finance Ministries of the European Union on Cross-Border Financial Stability/Annex 2 which is licensed {{EUCopyright}}. Should image be tagged same and moved to commons? Jeepday (talk) 00:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Used on Memorandum of Understanding on Cooperation between the Financial Supervisory Authorities, Central Banks and Finance Ministries of the European Union on Cross-Border Financial Stability/Annex 2 which is licensed {{EUCopyright}}. Should image be tagged same and moved to commons? Jeepday (talk) 11:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed:

Moved to Commons- AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Unlicensed image used on Married Love/4 (1918), Should be licensed (if appropriate) and moved to commons. Jeepday (talk) 00:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Unlicensed image used on Married Love/4 (1918), Should be licensed (if appropriate) and moved to commons. Jeepday (talk) 00:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed:

take to Wikisource:Possible copyright violations JeepdaySock (talk) 14:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Unlicensed document used on Barack Obama's prayer at the Western Wall Should be licensed (if appropriate) and moved to commons. Jeepday (talk) 00:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed:

take to Wikisource:Possible copyright violations JeepdaySock (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Unlicensed document used on Charles Whitman police report Should be licensed (if appropriate) and moved to commons. Jeepday (talk) 11:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed:

take to Wikisource:Possible copyright violations JeepdaySock (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Unlicensed document used on Secret Meeting with Taliban group member and Iraqi government Should be licensed (if appropriate) and moved to commons. Jeepday (talk) 10:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Proposed_deletions/Archives/2012-05&oldid=10488071"