Limb salvage surgery, Gregorian mass & Mass card – Not within DRV's jurisdiction, and seems to be moot anyway, since there is no copyvio concerns now that the articles have been deleted or redirected. – Tim Song (talk) 06:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Hello, about 6 months ago I made 2 pages and improved 1, all of these pages I accidently copied and pasted copyrighted information. When I went to create and improve the pages I didn't really give much thought to using the copyrighted data. I've fixed the pages as much the best I could without violating or using any of the copyrighted information. I tried replacing the copyrighted information with information that I already knew. I think that since the articles have very little value, I think it would be best if you could please delete them. User:BennyK95 March 18, 2010, 19:39 (UTC)
This is the wrong venue. You need to go to WP:AFD. DRV is used when someone is challenging the results of a deltion discussion and since that is not the case here there is nothing that can be done here.--76.66.189.193 (talk) 02:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. To the extent this is request for G7 deletion I am minded to decline it with regard to Gregorian mass which was reworked by another editor and to revert Mass card back to the redirect it was before User:BennyK95 expanded it. Limb salvage surgery has fairly extensive history before User:BennyK95 added content and can be reverted also. I'll leave this up for a while to see if anyone objects before implementing those changes. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Eluchil404 about Mass card and have redirected the article. Also, I agree regarding Gregorian mass, which has been substantially reworked. However, the Limb salvage surgery was started by BennyK95, and still could be a copyright infringement, and should be tagged as such. PhilKnight (talk) 16:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I used some copyrighted information (without thinking) on Gregorian mass and Limb salvage. Since Limb salvage has no encyclopedic value (if you try looking them up in a search engine there isn't much information regarding it) I believe since this article contains copyrighted information, please delete it or have someone revise it with information from a different source.
With regards to Gregorian Mass: I think since Wikipedia is not a Catholic encyclopedia and some of the information that I tried to make it look better is still copyrighted, maybe delete the article. I could revise Gregorian mass and get permission to use the information on the page. I think for the mean-time I will put an under-construction template so people will come back later when we have decided what to do.User:BennyK95 March 19 16:19 2010 (UTC)
I've deleted Limb Salvage surgery as Benny was the original author, and he expressed concerns about it being a copyright violation of multiple sources. PhilKnight (talk) 16:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the best thing to do with Gregorian mass might be to delete it. If people are looking for information regarding this, I think the best place to look would be on the internet.
KeepGregorian mass this seems a notable topic and reliable sources are available this version does not appear to include any copyvio text, insofar as I can tell. The article has since that version been redirected, but i think I will revert the redirection and expand with content from other sources. That should also deal with any copyvio issues. DES(talk) 16:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
commentMass card currently redirects to Holy card. If these are in fact the same thing, having a single article would be better, but the info on the Irish controversy (rewritten to avoid copyvio) should probably be merged. DES(talk) 16:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gregorian mass does have on line that is considered copyvio. So if I can remove that one line then you can restore it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BennyK95 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
File:JJAudubon.JPG – upload log and additional information supplied per request. Nothing more to do here as far as I can tell. – Thryduulf (talk) 15:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Hi! I am reviewing this image at Commons, where it lacks information about source. It only says "{PD-old} from en wiki John James Audubon" [1]. FTR, deletion log here says
23:34, 12 November 2007 Maxim (talk | contribs) deleted "File:JJAudubon.JPG" (Deleted because "CSD I8 - Image has the same name on Wikimedia Commons".
I don't need to restore the en: page, what I ask for is that you tell me if there were more information on the en: page than there is currently on commons: one, in order to complete the latter.
PS: Upload log on en: would be valuable information. --ArséniureDeGallium (talk) 17:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The image was uploaded by User:Infrogmation on 09:23, November 5, 2002. The info given was portrait of John James Audubon from 19th century book when queried about the source he elaborated Scanned by me from US published 19th century book in my own collection. There is no other relevant info in the history as far as I can tell. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
