User talk:BirgitteSB/2007 archive

Speeches

Thanks for your reply, I will do my best to address the concerns you raise in a more public forum as well as here. I have based my arguments around the idea of originality, that is to say that a "slavish copy" cannot qualify for copyright protection; this appears to be where you rejoined the discussion. The Court of Appeals case is based around the idea of publication, and states in two different ways that a speech is not considered to be "published" under U.S. copyright law. Although I have discussed this with Benn on IRC, it is not an argument which I have yet chosen to bring into the open on Wikisource. The treatment of speeches as unpublished works is much less amenable to simple guidelines like my proposal that "speeches be treated as any other literary work": however, I still feel that a treatment on the basis of 'who is the real author of the words' is the only way to go forward: I certainly do not believe that the mere fact of creating a transcription of a speech gives rise to a copyright. I will leave it to you to correct the minor factual errors in your contribution. Physchim62 15:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Mail

You have it! --Herby ^{talk thyme} 19:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki requests

Hi Birgitte. I recall that at some point during 2006 you made an effort to "bug the devs" about applying various features at Wikisource. I have two questions:

1. Besides Labeled Section Transclusion, what were the other features? Were they ever implemented?

2. Thanks to User:Sanbeg, LST has become a streamlined, ready-to-go MediaWiki extension which more than meets our needs. I am considering doing a publicity blitz at the wikitech-1 mailing list to request that it get implemented live at Wikisource. The following is a draft post to the mailing list:

Thanks to the continual help and expertise of User:Sanbeg, Labeled Section
Transclusion is now a full-fledged MediaWiki extension that has been put to use
at external sites.

This extension allows selective transclusion of marked-off sections of text on a
wiki-page. It is a great deal more flexible than "onlyinclude" and "noinclude", and will allow for many unforseen uses.

See: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Labeled_Section_Transclusion

Every type of functionality that was requested for this extension has been
implemented, and various small issues have been ironed out over the past few
months.

Labeled Section Transclusion was originally requested as a feature for
Wikisource (bugzilla:7995), and the current extension more than meets
Wikisource's needs. It would be great if it could be applied live at the
Wikisource
wikis.

Among other things, doing so would allow it to get some heavy-duty testing,
since the uses for this extension might eventually go beyond Wikisource.

Dovi Jacobs

Any suggestions on the wording? Would you be willing to follow up with a further note? Dovi 09:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, sent it. If you could follow up it would be great. Dovi 19:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Septuagint

Brigitte: I downloaded two versions of the Septuagint:

• Rahlf's edition from Ralph Hancock
• the edition of the Church of Greece from the archdiocese of Crete

There are some minor differences: Obadiah is Abdiu in the Rahlf ed. and Obdiu in the Church ed. 70.51.185.3 14:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC) (w:User:AndreasJS)

Response

Hi Birgitte. Thanks for your helpful note. i do feel that the article is useful. I have posted some reasons on the article's talk page. Also, I realize it does not fit the mold of many categories, so I created a new category called Category:Informational which I hope seems useful. my goal is to be helpful in creating a useful resource, so please feel free to leave any comments on ways to improve this. thanks very much for your help.By the way, my name is Steve, and I live in NYC. Thanks. --Sm8900 19:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

An account of the founding of St. Louis

Hi, Birgitte! I'll start working on this translation today. I apologise for the delay, but I had a few unexpected translations to do before I could move on. See you around. Arria Belli 15:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It's been done. It still needs some massive rereading, though, because the problem with Chouteau is that his sentences tend to wander like an old man with Alzheimers. It was quite hard to translate some passages, so if you see anything that needs clearing up, just change it or ask me questions about the original text in French. À bientôt, Arria Belli 01:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Birgitte. Unfortunately my knowledge of French is almost nil, so I am unable to help with this. Gavroche 17:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes

Well on the poem in question, I'd have to say there is no "ideal" way of providing word-meanings. In general in works however, I find the footnotes/ref-tags a good solution because they provide a small non-obtrusive link that one can immediately click to be taken down to the explanation if they desire, which then includes a link to jump back up to their place in the text...or they can ignore it altogether. It's much better than having "By the way, this sentence was a reference to the botched coronation of Elizabeth I by the anti-Pope Jean XI" at the bottom of a chapter/page when people have already read past that sentence and dismissed it. But as per the poem on hand, I admit that no way is going to make it "easily readable with translations" other than perhaps just running a side-by-side translation...or frankly not including the translation, it's not like the words were that difficult to decipher in the first place :P Sherurcij ^{(talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει)} 23:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Google Books / Print - Public Domain books...

You are aware the Google PDF files appear to have an NC term? ShakespeareFan00 23:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• Thank you for this thoughtful explanation, and again, I apologize if any offense was taken by anyone. Please understand that none was meant. Smee 17:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

archive copyright provision

Hi,

I was browsing WS:COPYVIO and I noted a comment you made on the G. K. Chesterton entry. I've never heard of the archive provision that would allow WS to continue to possess certain copyrighted works. Do you have a link to any information on this provision? I'd really like to read up on it, and see if there is any way to exploit this thing to the benefit of WS (and, well, any knowledge of it might come in handy for future copyvio discussion as well).—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 19:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The Captive

This translation of a chapter of Remembrance of Things Past was done in 1929, and renewed in 1956, according to the Stanford database (R176423), meaning its copyright doesn't expire until 2023. 216.165.199.50 01:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we should keep works which are PD in their country of origin (France and UK here). Yann 08:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Yann. We would not be breaking any laws by hosting this free content work which is in the last 20 years of its US copyright term.--BirgitteSB 15:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC) To clarify the translator is Scottish and died in 1930 so this is PD in the UK--BirgitteSB 18:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The text presented here is original 1929 version but not that, which was revised by Terence Kilmartin and Andreas Mayor that I checked comparing with my copy of the 1954 edition, Penguin Books (Reprint 1986). So, we are not breaking any laws by hosting this text, which can be find at the following web addresses: indexadelaide (Dmitrismirnov 22:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)) I just want to attract your attention to this topic. (Dmitrismirnov 11:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC))

I didn't check that business about The Captive very deeply. However, it appears to me that you're applying the "last 20 years" exception for libraries and archives wrongly. 17 USC 108(h)(2)(A) states very clearly that this exception is not applicable if the work in question is subject to normal commercial exploitation. The Captive is still being commercially exploited (it's sold in book form: [1]). So is Chesterton's Tales from the Long Bow: [2]. Hence you cannot claim that publishing these copyrighted works at Wikisource were fine by the "archives exceptions" in 17 USC 108(h).

Besides, I find it disconcerting that apparently the consensus here is to ignore U.S. law. Of course we'd all (me included!) love to apply the simple rule "PD in source country = PD everywhere", but that's not the way the laws were made. At the very least, I would wait until the foundation confirms that such a rule was fine with the WMF. Anthere has promised to get the Board to issue a resolution on that topic, see m:User talk:Anthere. Lupo 20:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no intention of ignoring US law.--BirgitteSB 13:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I just remembered I did say that if I were a non-English WS. I would ignore the shorter term issue until told otherwise by WMF. Because I feel non-english communities will need major guidence on the issue. I have no intention of seeing US law ignored on en.WS. It would be stupid. We can all read the laws and what is written about them in our native language.--BirgitteSB 13:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Birgitte, I didn't mean my statement that "apparently the consensus here is to ignore U.S. law" as an attack on you. It's just the impression I got when looking over Wikisource:Possible copyright violations.

Anyway, given that 17 USC 108(h) applies only to works that are no longer commercially exploited and that are not available, not even as a used copy, at a "reasonable price", I fear that this "last 20 years" exception is, in practice, inapplicable. It's a pity, it would have offered the Wikisources and the Commons (because since 2005, section 108(h) also covers pictorial works, see Preservation of Orphan Works Act and House report 109-33!) such a nice way out of the dilemma of PD-old-70 works still copyrighted in the U.S. (at least for most such works, currently anything published up to 1932). But it looks as if that doesn't work. :-( And it wouldn't have worked for the Wikipedias anyway, as these are not archives. Lupo 07:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to summarize the issues with section 108 here: w:User:Lupo/Section 108. Feel free to comment (or not :-). Lupo 15:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

WS:Fiction

I saw that, too. I left a comment on Talk:Main Page to get some suggestions. But I did some looking, and I think the best bet might be to direct that link (and possibly all others) to Category:Fiction (or their respective categories, for the other links). The category will be much easier to handle, but with the unfortunate consequence that we can't add any kind of meta-material to the works we've categorized.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 18:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

CotW

Your suggestion for Wikisource:Collaboration of the Week, of improving Wikisource's collection of the writings of Author:Henry James has been approved, and is the current collaboration. ^{see how I made that look almost official, like a template? pseudo-professional!} Sherurcij ^{COTW:Harriet Beecher Stowe} 01:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

-Henry James, +Lady Gregory. Sherurcij ^{COTW:Harriet Beecher Stowe} 17:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

A vandal...

Just in case this has not been cleaned up by the time you arrive, could you please deal with this vandal: Special:Contributions/Kazoo_the_Magnificent. Thanks. I can't do it properly, would need an indef block and several deletions. Lupo 09:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Been dealt with, thanks to User:MaxSem, a steward. Lupo 10:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Public domain documents

Thank you for your comments, responded on my talk. I find it hard to described this effort in some other term other than "censorship". What else could we use to describe trying to get previously already Public Domain documents removed from this site? Suppression of information? Embarrassment over the contents of the actual Public Domain documents? I honestly don't know. Smee 02:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC).

• Per Jossi: "I have raised this issue with OTRS, and will raise it on the mailing list as well." -- Do you know what is this "mailing list" that Jossi refers to? Thanks for your time. Smee 03:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC).

Thanks

Thank you, Brigitte for your comment at AN. Unfortunately, I have had to learn to develop a thick skin [...] ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, thank you as well for your comments. I have also had to develop a thick skin [...] Thanks for intervening. Smee 19:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC).

[further comments removed]

I did a little cleanup here. Since neither of you have thin skins, I am assuming you will not mind.--BirgitteSB 20:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

:) not at all... Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Smee 23:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC).

BLP discussion on WS:DEL

I've just finished going through it, and agree with your position. The discussion was fairly thought-provoking, if anything, and might be something we might have to address later in the future (some aspects of the discussion) as WS grows in size and usership.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 13:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Zadig

Just so I'm certain I understand your "complaint", it's that you want it to read /Chapter 1 instead of /1? That's the only thing I saw on WS:Style that didn't seem to be exact. Sherurcij ^{COTW:Voltaire} 16:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Fountain of Praise

Could you check that page out, it seems it belongs more on Wikipedia than Wikisource. But that is just my opinion. Wabbit98 14:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the work you're doing on The How and Why Library! I'll be scanning in the rest of the pages when I have time. I think the last part of the book, the "How and Why of Etiquette" is the most interesting. SCEhardT 22:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Bible/Obadiah

C'est seulement pour des traductions en anglais aussi bien que des langues originales (Hébreu, Grec, Latin). Vous devriez contribuer à s:La Bible. Veuillez excuser mon français faible. --User:BirgitteSB

C'est plutôt l'inverse. C'est Wikisource qui devrait utiliser WebCodex pour saisir les versets en bases de données. Cordialement MLL 21:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

From what I could tell looking at the English descriptions, webcodex is something like another wiki platform, and the two sites listed may have bible versions that we don't; so it may be possible to copy them from there, maybe even automatically, if that's the case. -Steve Sanbeg 21:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the JPS books do have verse markers here, although not in the standard format. I've standardized a few of the books that hadn't had any manual editing on them yet. I took a quick look at that site, but so far I don't see a way to automatically mirror their content. -Steve Sanbeg 19:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

George Eastman suicide note

I'm not sure what the exact title was, but the logs of WS:Suicide notes give the name I gave - I would assume it was the very brief "To my friends; my work is done. Why wait?" that google seems to be suggesting, though it may've included the full longer work I found somewhere - the project initially grew out of my interest in tracking down the full suicide notes of people who were only remembered for a memorable line. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Wilhelm II} 18:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Imperatoris Iustiniani Codicis

Dear BirgiteSB make a proposal for this stuff! Thank you. --Pvasiliadis 14:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Days of War

There was a discussion at Wikisource:Scriptorium recently in which we came to the conclusion that this book was acceptable, as it is a fairly popular work found in many libraries across the nation. -- LGagnon 19:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Romeo and Juliet

Hello,

There is another copy of this book. See Image:Romeo and Juliet.djvu. Regards, Yann 22:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

I've supplied the translation and link to the discussion in Community Discussion. Dmitrismirnov 14:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Principia Discordia

Principia Discordia is in the public domain. pg 75 clearly states "All Rights REVERSED", not "reserved". It's a joke, see? i spent a LOT of time on that page, i dont feel like doing it all over again. Please re-read the page i posted here CAREFULLY, and kindly undelete the page. --Popefauvexxiii 01:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I found nothing in the copyright policy that excludes Principia Discordia. I humbly request, administrator, that you direct me to the specific policy outlined there, which justifies the deletion of my work as a volunteer editor to this wikiproject. --Popefauvexxiii 02:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with your assessment, the implications of the concise wording should be interpreted broadly rather than narrowly, and the key is in the joke (emphasis mine): "ALL RIGHTS REVERSED. Reprint what you like." Rather than all rights reserved, all rights are reversed. the implication of this is that no rights are retained. Reprint what you like" is an implicit license for modification, since a portion which "one likes" is solely the prerogative of the person duplicating the work, and not a specifically, legally-definable portion such as a page or an article. --Popefauvexxiii 01:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

i request a legal opinion on Wikisource:Possible copyright violations. --Popefauvexxiii 03:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion at Russian Wikisource

Birgitte, please, draw attention on a discussion at ru:Викитека:Форум:Авторское Право. -- Sergey Kudryavtsev 13:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

An Anarchist FAQ

Given that it'll be published by AK Press later this year, would it be out of line for one to jump the gun and add the GFDL-licensed An Anarchist FAQ to Wikisource already? -- LGagnon 21:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

A dialect of Donegal

Thanks for the tip! It may indeed make proofreading easier, but I don't see how I can avoid uploading single JPEGs to Commons. I have to scan the pages individually, don't I? Angr/_Talk 18:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

If you're still deleting

[3] FloNight 15:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks--BirgitteSB 15:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you :) FloNight 15:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

My point from earlier

(moved from Scriptorium) My point is simply that it shapes a new WS member's opinion on a subject, if they say "Hrm, one person wants to do something one way, and the other person is saying that isn't possible". It's not unlike if somebody on Commons said "As a public depository of images, we simply cannot accept photographs that depict genitals" - it leaves confusion in the naive reader's mind if that user is arguing their belief, or is actually stating a fact. It's no different than when I chide Pathoschild for his "admin" tag in front of his name - if three people are debating a point, and then somebody named "Admin" comes in and says "This is the way it is", then the naive newbies are going to assume that it's the word of God. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:William Gordon Stables} 08:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

If the discussion were in a debate of specific work on Proposed Deletions, I would see you point. But I do not see any "feigned authority" in the context of this discussion focused on opinions about what policy should be. I think it disingenuous to suggest you protecting naive newbies who will never even be a part of this discussion! We are lucky if half the dedicated editors take part in this kind of Scriptorium discussion. And I would really appreciate if you struck the censorship metaphor and stopped saying "what you are saying just like some random totally unrelated thing". Because I mean nothing of the sort, literally or in metaphor, and I don't appreciate you putting such words in my mouth.--BirgitteSB 13:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Also to repeat what you actually said: Again a small detail of feigned authority. That speaks to my intention. And you seriously misjudge my intentions in this. Which honestly offends me, since I think you should know me better.--BirgitteSB 14:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

wittgenstein's tractatus

the current version of wittgenstein's tractatus has several mistakes and omissions. 72.150.187.44 19:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

PMLA

I ask you this because you have dealt with literary works in the past, so I'm assuming you are familiar with this publication. I recently acquired two stacks of old PMLAs. The older stack is from the 1910s except for two issues from 1923, and the more recent stack from the mid-1950s. What most surprised me about this well-known academic publication is that they were published without copyright notices In the absence of separate copyrights claimed by the individual authors it would seem that all this stuff is in the public domain! I don't have any specific articles in mind that I want to contribute, but it is something worth keeping in mind. Eclecticology 22:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Images?

Birgitte, what is the position of the English Wikisource on images? Specifically, images that are PD in the U.S., but not in their country of origin, and that are used to illustrate a work here? Would it be ok to upload such images locally here? See commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Alice B. Woodward; the illustrations are used in Adventures in Toyland. Lupo 22:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure. We didn't think of this circumstance when we decided to move away from hosting images locally. I imagine we would host them, because we would not have a different rule copyright just because it is an image rather than text. Let me look into this.--BirgitteSB 14:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I just saw your question today as I've been too swamped with RL and Wikipedia-en arbcom stuff to edit here. :-( What do you think is best? FloNight 22:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, pardon me for cutting in here. (I'm an admin on Commons and en:wiki, and I specialize in copyright and image policy.) I hope I can shed some light here.

• I would hope Wikisource would apply the same standards for images and texts. I can't think of any reason to treat them differently.
• Wikisource's policies at Wikisource:Copyright policy and Wikisource:What Wikisource includes do not answer Lupo's question, even for non-photographic works. In fact, they are quite confusing and ought to be rewritten. It isn't clear, for instance, that a post-1923 work in the public domain is eligible for inclusion (although common sense indicates that it is). Help:Public domain sheds little light on the matter.
• To answer Lupo's question definitively either way would require a change to those policies, and should be discussed as widely as possible.
• Allow me to point out that some countries treat copyright in bizarre ways. Britain considers the King James Bible (and other works important to British history) to have a never-ending copyright. Cuba says that the copyright for "corporate works" never expires. Afghanistan has no copyright law. Indonesia calls certain works "public domain", but says you still may not use them for profit. Etc.
• How does the English Wikipedia work? Inconsistently. w:Wikipedia:Public domain says "Although legislation is sometimes unclear about which laws are to apply on the Internet, the primary law relevant for Wikipedia is that of the United States." But that's law, not policy. The same page says "When a work has not been published in the U.S. but in some other country, that other country's copyright laws also must be taken into account", but it doesn't say how, and this is not done in practice. En:wiki usually treats as PD any work that is PD in the U.S. -- sort of. A pre-1923 work created in England, where the author died less than 70 years ago, is treated as PD on en:Wikipedia, even though England considers it under copyright. But a recent work created in Iran (which does not have a copyright treaty with the United States, and whose works are legally PD in the U.S.) is not treated as PD unless it is PD in Iran. This is inconsistent, but that's the way it is.
• How does the Commons work? Differently, but also inconsistently. Commons:Commons:Licensing states "Generally, the policy applied on Commons is to only allow images that can be used in all (or at least most) countries." But this is flatly untrue. It later says "A work is only allowed on Commons if it is. . . public domain in all relevant jurisdictions. . .", but the word "relevant" isn't defined. In general practice, works on Commons are deleted unless they are PD in their country of origin. But this isn't true for Commons:Category:King James Bible, for instance.
• Hypothetically, en:Wikisource (or any other Wikimedia project) could decide that a work is always considered PD here if it is PD in the U.S. The trouble is, all other English-speaking countries would consider us to host copyright violations, and we could well get sued (though not in the U.S.)
• Hypothetically, en:Wikisource (or any other Wikimedia project) could decide that the only works we'll call PD are those that are not protected by copyright in their country of origin. But the KJV bible would be out.

Comments, anyone? Quadell 17:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite agree with your characterizations of the en-WP and the Commons policies. As I see it:

• en-WP operates under U.S. law exclusively. That means anything published pre-1923 is considered PD, even if it is a non-U.S. work that isn't PD in the source country. For works first published 1923 or later, and for unpublished works, the law of the source country must be considered even at en-WP because of the URAA. If the non-U.S. work was copyrighted in its source country in 1996 (in most cases), its copyright was restored in the U.S. to the full term, and thus it's not PD in the U.S. That's the reason for your perceived inconsistency between pre-1923 foreign works and the Iranian works you mentioned. (In the case of Iran, we also pretend there were copyright relations based on Jimbo's old comment.)

• The Commons uses the rule that a work claimed to be PD must be PD at least in the U.S. and in the source country. This is stated quite clearly at commons:COM:L#Interaction of United States copyright law and foreign copyright law. For U.S. works, that degenerates to "PD in the U.S.". We have some inconsistencies, in which we de facto apply only the rule "PD in the source country". That concerns "freedom of panorama" images of sculptures (which we host if ok in the source country of the depicted work, even though not ok in the U.S.). It also concerns non-U.S. works published 1923 or later where the author died more than 70 years ago. We host such works even if they might be copyrighted in the U.S. (again, due to the URAA).

If Wikisource follows the en-WP way, we could host and use these images here. If it follows the Commons' approach, we can't. Lupo 19:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Another comment: the w:King James Bible is not under "perpetual copyright". It is subject to the Royal Printing prerogative (déjà-vu, Birgitte?), which we don't quite know yet what to make of. For the time being, it appears we treat this as a non-copyright restriction particular to the UK. Wikimedia projects (and our very licensing policy) have a long tradition of ignoring such extra-copyright restrictions (see here). Lupo 19:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Aha! I'm delighted to hear that. Quadell 22:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see this discussion since I was hoping to work on Adventures in Toyland sometime this week as I didn't want to leave it hanging on Commons and here any longer.

I think it is highly desirable for Wikisource to treat the images and text the same when they are published solely as one as in the case of a book like Adventures in Toyland. Because of that I lean towards using the Wikipedia-en model instead of Commons model. FloNight 19:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we need to use the same set of rules for text and images when the reasoning is {{PD-1923}}. It would be silly to do otherwise, as that reasoning is either valid for the whole publication or else invalid. As for more encompassing guidelines, I think it will just depends (is that a true copyright answer or what?). I have been purposely been standing back from copyright issues for a bit. I want to take time clear my head of all the particular cases and try see if I can come back a fresh approach to the general guidelines. I can't say that the community has a cohesive idea about the larger model. Mostly when it comes down to it; we have been using US interpretation of public domain. Some find that too restrictive, others too permissive, and still others want a hybrid for certian issues. Some do not want to deal with specific legal frameworks when discussing "free content", others can't see how to avoid them. Concerns for principles and concerns over liabilty talk past each other. (I apologize in advance to anyone who finds that summary unfair please correct me.) How do we decide 'What is public domain?' when that question is actually the unprovable negative of 'Is X protected by copyright?' And the true answer to that must start with 'Where?'--BirgitteSB 22:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I think we should move the images here, and then start on open discussion on Wikisource talk:What Wikisource includes, to make it official. Quadell 22:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll start moving the Toyland images in the next few days. FloNight 19:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the issue is covered well enough there: "any work published before 1923". It is the image guidelines about local hosting that need tweaked. I have got to go right now but I will dig up the correct pages tonight.--BirgitteSB 22:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't cover post-1923 works that are PD in the U.S. I think it could definitely use rewording, and perhaps even a major rewrite. Quadell 23:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

In the past we have generally worked rewrite on pages like: Wikisource:What Wikisource includes/rewrite. With the Scriptorium discussion about including Author page for dead but copyrighted authors, there are probaly a few issues to look at. Wikisource:Image guidelines and Help:Adding images are the two page I was thinking about regarding local image hosting.--BirgitteSB 18:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I made a suggestion here to get the ball rolling. FloNight 19:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I've proposed Wikisource:What Wikisource includes/rewrite. Feel free to rip it to shreds. Quadell 22:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

User:DrussBot

Hi, I blocked quickly as soon as I noticed it running, but kept the block short as I wasnt sure what was going on, and its edits looked reasonable at first glance. I then asked lar to take a look. He agreed with an infinite block but suggested it stay as it was while he investigated. lar did get back to me, but I forgot to reblock. I have now done that. John Vandenberg 20:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Volapük cleanup proposal

Hi BirgitteSB, thanks for your enlightening comment in the discussion of the m:Proposals for closing projects/Radical cleanup of Volapük Wikipedia. For the time being, the opposers of the proposal seem to be winning, but the difference is small, so I wondered: should the supporters win the vote, can their plan be carried out? If, as you said, there are strong objections against this proposal from WMF principles (free as in freedom, etc.) and if it sets a dangerous precedent (cf. the Polish wikipedia cleanup fiasco), would a "yes" result be executed, or would it be stopped on the grounds that you mentioned? Thanks in advance! --83.85.142.49 11:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC) --Smeira 11:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

User:BirgitteSB/Page Moves

Greetings again. I was looking at User:BirgitteSB/Page Moves, and I'm not clear on what needs to be done. I write botscripts at the English Wikipedia, and if these are the sort of repetitive tasks that a bot can do, I could help out. But what needs to be moved, to where, and why? Quadell 17:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)