“ The wikilawyering on display here, as well as holding this text hostage to your entirely personal interpretation of copyright law, has passed into unconstructive territory now. G6 does not apply at all as the text is not a copyvio and nobody has suggested that it is, much less argued that. G2 is a safety-valve to avoid the need for repeated community discussions when content has previously been deleted, not a requirement that it be speedily deleted or prevented from recreation. ”

“ Notes
↑ Under this model, any editorial policy we adopt would cause all the works allowed on the site to gain the legitimacy of meeting the Wikisource ethical standard. It would be a self-fulfilling prophecy, in a sense: An ethical editorial standard exists because it's unethical to host works that promote unethical behavior; it's unethical to host works that promote unethical behavior because doing so would lend them legitimacy; doing so would lend them legitimacy because an ethical editorial standard exists. ”

“ What I am not fine with is the exclusion of the case text altogether pending the outcome of the discussion over the appendices. There is no basis in policy for such an exclusion while the other matters are being discussed. BD2412 T 22:23, 24 February 2023 (UTC) There certainly is a “basis in policy”—this page is subject to deletion under speedy deletion rules G2 and G6, because it was previously deleted (G2) as a copyright violation (G6) . That only some of the material was under consideration, is no bar to this rule; it applies to the whole work. ”

“ As I said neither Wikisource nor Commons is generally Censored, some of the specific issues here being:- Wikisource should be applying the same high standards as the original Journal, in re-evaluating the work, given that ethical concerns HAD been expressed, leading to the work's retraction. ”

“ PseudoSkull (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC) @PseudoSkull: Note that this particular user has made all of four edits to any WMF project, each edit creating a page in mainspace that was subsequently moved to userspace due to lacking any kind of quality, source, license, etc.: Special:PrefixIndex/Sam joe quick/.
There was no response to Billinghurst's message on their talk page at that time, so I hold it exceedingly unlikely that this user will ever return to the project. If they do they can easily request undeletion. ”

“ There appear to be some legitimate issues to explore that, no matter the outcome for this text, may help us deal with other controversial or sensitive texts in the future. Because as Brewster Kahle and Elon Musk are discovering, not taking an ethical stance is in itself an ethical stance when there exist actors who play by different rules. ”

“ Thus, I suggest that this poem should be permitted, since it's unreasonable to expect someone to use a scan if no-one can find a scan. If a scan comes along in future, probably due to digitisation of some local Dundee broadsheet, this "unsourced edition" (in that it's not clearly tied to a physical edition, though it likely is YMPGs) can be replaced with a suitably backed copy. In the mean time, we have {{unsourced}} and {{second-hand}} to make it's provenance, or lack thereof, clear. ”

“ I hate reading some blog or similar website and finding some vehement discussion about some article that no longer exists. It's also a historian's complaint; we know of many of the historical orthodoxy (or future orthodoxy) opponents only by reports of how they are wrong, not what they said. ”

“ What I'm saying is that, yes, userspace drafts should get wide latitude for active or somewhat established users; drive-by copydumps temporarily moved to userspace to get them out of mainspace do not qualify. (this, btw, is why I do not think moving things to userspace is a good idea: it ends up as a dumping ground for all the junk, essentially kicking the can down the road for someone else to deal with) . --Xover (talk) 13:11, 15 January 2023 (UTC) Appears to be the same as , by Mao Tse-tung. Ping User:Sam joe quick for info. ”

“ It's within scope and better to have it ready for the next guys with interest/helpful completionists. — LlywelynII 13:46, 26 November 2022 (UTC) @LlywelynII: If it was transcribed to a scan, then it would be perfectly acceptable to be incomplete and available for further work. It is our clear experience that works in this form they do not progress, they just sit and rot. If someone wishes to upload the scan, and start the migration process, then it approaches something retainable and workable. Currently? Simply too hard for users to easily progress. ”

“ Question WS:SCOPE states that Wikisource does not collect reference material unless it is published as part of a complete source text. But as we don't have corresponding transcribed text for that issue of government gazette, isn't that it is not published as part of a complete source text?廣九直通車 (talk) 12:48, 1 March 2023 (UTC) You're right. It's just that those who do not wish to delete anything, ever, for any reason (I'm exaggerating for effect, but you get my drift...) ”

“ I don’t think the identity of the creator is relevant, and I don’t think that a speedy deletion would have been appropriate given the age of the template and its recent use. These objections aside, I agree that the template has use, and should be deleted. TE (æ) A,ea. (talk) 23:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC) The identity of the uploader is relevant insofar as it takes quite a lot of rather unsavoury behaviour to be globally banned by the WMF (we're talking off-wiki harassment and similar, in addition to on-wiki shenanigans) , which means we can no longer assume good faith in their actions. ”

“ I will be able to scan it soon. It also contains a fair amount of text beyond the actual translation, but it’s not necessary to proofread that to be able to keep the work for right now. TE (æ) A,ea. (talk) 20:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC) I really hope to get this scanned in either this week or next week. Jan Kameníček: I looked at the two examples you provided to see whether they were true additions. There are only ten centuries which survive in whole ”

“ Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Well we can't use "L'Envoi (Kipling) " because it isn't unique... it does seem suboptimal for a link to that used to point to "Title (Author) " to now point to "Title" instead as a double redirect whenever we find a second work by the same author with the same title. It would be good to document this on Help:Disambiguation to make this clear going forward. MarkLSteadman (talk) 14:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Yes, "L'Envoi (Kipling) " is too ambiguous to use for a versions page, and too specific for a disambig page. ”

“ MarkLSteadman (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC) I did reach out to the user and offer to find them a scan. Part of the rationale for this policy is to stop further unsourced/secondary transcriptions. Languageseeker (talk) 20:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC) You mean: how can you police the honesty of contributors? That's an entirely separate issue, and not relevant for this deletion discussion. --EncycloPetey (talk) It’s about making a presumption that no source = secondary transcription as the most likely scenario. The other works that the user posted are from a secondary source. ”

“ Seemingly a duplicate or early draft transclusion of U.S. Department of the Army No Gun Ri Review Report and the user has not been active on Wikisource for over a Decade. The flagged LintErrors are minor.
Do we retain userspace drafts indefinitely on English Wikisource? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:36, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Keep A userspace draft should be kept unless the user wants it deleted. We don't know what their use case for it might still be (if they were to come back) . ”

“ Just giving you some advice. Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 16:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC) @User:Shāntián Tàiláng Thank you. This source would make it a secondary transcription and out-of-scope. Languageseeker (talk) 02:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC) Keep It rather seems to me that this poem will not be easy to scan-back due to lack of unambiguously copyright-free physical copies. While any one poem is clearly in the PD, the actual book Yet More Poetic Gems is not because copyright subsists in the collection itself, so we can't host a scan of that book. ”

“ No problem if someone wants to import the commons into an index and scan back the manuscript version. MarkLSteadman (talk) 02:13, 21 March 2023 (UTC) This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2023 (UTC) User:Oriflamma/tmp
The following discussion is closed:
Kept. User space working page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
User space transcription, last edited 2015 for corrections, but not otherwise substantially edited for at least a decade. ”

“ Unsourced version of a poem we have three other scan-backed versions of. Xover (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Delete Sure is. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 00:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC) Keep The first page of the source is the image on the page (File:Houghton MS Eng 258.2 - Shelley, To a Skylark 1.jpg) ; pages 2-6 are on Commons. This is the manuscript so, may be different to printed versions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing) ; Talk to Andy ”

“ This is an unsourced edition added from an unknown edition. There are two scan-backed copies of this work on enWS. Languageseeker (talk) 03:42, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Delete. Could be even speedied per Wikisource:Deletion policy#G4: An unsourced work that is redundant to a sourced (scanned) version.. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:27, 1 March 2023 (UTC) Is the unsourced edition identical to one of the sourced editions? If so, I'll speedy it myself. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:56, 5 April 2023 (UTC) Delete, per nom and Jan. ”