User talk:Jeepday

Archives

/Archive 1

To Do

• The Scientific American Boy Or, The Camp at Willow Clump Island by Author: A. Russell Bond.

Internet archive DjVu http://www.archive.org/details/thescientificame15831gut

Kindle http://www.amazon.com/Scientific-American-Willow-Island-ebook/dp/B004TIKQT4/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2&s=digital-text&qid=1303728429&sr=8-3

Transwiki

q:Special:Import would be the page, and q:Special:ListGroupRights would be the page that states what accounts have what rights. — billinghurst sDrewth 17:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc

It looks that you played a significant part in early set out of the work. When I look at the front page with a wider screen the right aligned images have an ocean of white space. I am wondering whether a gallery may be a reliable means to display, and I am led to believe that there is now finer control on the display of galleries. Also when I was checking transclusions, I see that Page:Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc.djvu/17 missed a guernsey, and I would like to see if we can get it introduced somewhere. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Gallery; Sure, just would not want to loose the titles under the image when trimming.
• guernsey: Not sure where you would put page 17. In print it is between A Peculiarity of Joan of Arc's History & The Sieur Louis de Conte. The only place I see is as a stand alone on Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc like Book I, but it would seem redundant and out of context. Looking at the history it would seem John left it out,[1] and neither you nor I choose to add it in. So two choices, added it to Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc or not... neither seems a "Best Choice". JeepdaySock (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

D'oh! This Page:Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc.djvu/15, rather than the other. — billinghurst sDrewth 17:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I put it with the other images, seems clear it should have a spot there. I fluctuated between making a page at after Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc/Translator's Preface as the image is also used at the header of Index:Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc.djvu. Your choice on making Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc/Content, and whatevery you would like to do for the gallery. JeepdaySock (talk) 10:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Industrial Society and Its Future

I didn't think there was a chance that that page was going to be deleted. I want the discussion to be reopened for at least two months and I want another admin to make the final decision this time. I don't know what the protocol is for this but I assume you do. --Protious (talk) 08:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The protocol would be for you to request an undelete at the same page and explain why it should be undeleted. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I would be glad to provide what ever assistance is needed in creating an un-delete request. JeepdaySock (talk) 14:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Could you give me the details ? Do I make the request in the same section or start a new one ? Do I just say "I am requesting an undelete and this is the space for discussion" ? Since there is no way to prove that something is in the public domain - only disprove - what do I have to do to get an admin to undelete the page, if the content of the page was never proved to be copyrighted in the first place ? --Protious (talk) 03:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

First thing you want to do is form a good argument for it to be restored. There is a lot of discussion at Wikisource:Possible_copyright_violations#Industrial_Society_and_Its_Future, read through and find the key pieces for it being PD, then read through and find the key arguments against it being PD. Try and form a short to the point statement on why the work is PD and include support for your assertions. You might try writing it at User:Protious/Industrial Society and Its Future. JeepdaySock (talk) 11:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. What next ? --Protious (talk) 15:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Create a new entry at the bottom of Wikisource:Possible copyright violations and add your entry (copy and paste). Name it something like "Restore Industrial Society and Its Future", the choice of naming the section is yours, what ever you think is best. Keep in mind this sentence at the top of WS:COPYVIO "If there is reasonable doubt, they will be deleted." and this sentence at WS:COPY#Contributors.27_rights_and_obligations "It is the responsibility of the contributor to assert compatibility with Wikisource's license."; which are somewhat different then the foundation assumptions of your last two arguments. You might try rewording or removing them before posting, again the choice is completely yours. You can strengthen your your first two arguments by providing references or links that support those arguments, such as proof that he did release the copyright. If I can be of any other help, let me know. Jeepday (talk) 18:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Category:Articles by

Thanks for your message. I was extending the idea to the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, but it was all done through {{DGRG initials}} so no work has been wasted. This has provoked me to create author pages for all the outstanding Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography/Authors: anyone who really wants to find articles by a particular author (which doesn't sound very likely) can do so from the "What links here"--Laverock ( Talk ) 18:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds great :) JeepdaySock (talk) 11:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Archival bot

RE: It gets archived when the bot runs and it has been more then 30 days since the last entry edit. JeepdaySock (talk) 15:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC): It seems the bot that archives Scriptorium material runs at random (13 Aug, 27 Sep, 28 Oct, 7 Dec) and not at regular monthly intervals (as I had assumed)... Should I make a request then, since the last bot run occurred just two days prior to what would have been the 30-day mark for the section I would love to see archived? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The archive bot is user:sanbeg (bot) which presumably is operated by User:Sanbeg, A look at SUL indicates not a very active user. Moral being a request is not likely to have an impact if the user does not log on, presumably the the user is delayed by holiday activities. You might discuss it with User:Billinghurst who is more bot aware than I, there is no rule against manually archiving files, but I am not sure what steps would be required to ensure that user:sanbeg (bot) is not adversely impacted on the next archive attempt of Wikisource:Scriptorium. JeepdaySock (talk) 11:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but on second thought,—what the heck... It'll go away eventually. I need to learn to <shrug> things off (à la Billinghurst) more anyway. Might as well practice now! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Great plan :) JeepdaySock (talk) 15:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Your great job clearing most of works tagged now banned PD-manifesto

Thank you very much for clearing most of Wikisource:Possible copyright violations/Special discussion for pages tagged as PD-manifesto while I also cleared some. To defend our copyright policy, the burden of proof rests upon contributors to prove that questioned works are acceptable here, so PD-manifesto has failed.--Jusjih (talk) 19:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

re: "Happy Editing"

Thank you. That was a good and honest jury. I have never been in that situation and area before. I also learned new things there. I think that jury made the right decision of "defusing the situation", "lessons learned", "continue working." It took me awhile to recover from many feelings. Respectfully, Maury (—William Maury Morris II ^Talk 18:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Understood, most of us have been there, and we strive to keep WS as friendly as possible. JeepdaySock (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Jeepdaysock, I never wanted wikisource anything but "friendly". It is, as I have learned, imperative to be able to ask questions. I am not inclined to ask questions although I have had to.

I feel that I am imposing upon people by bothering them. I recall a statement of this sort by me on AdamBMorgan's page. Now, because I started here without asking questions and worked here for a good while (years) I did not read all that I should have nor ask questions except to Billinghurst who I found to be intelligent, very helpful, and very friendly. I was transcribing books with my Brother Officer account and these books as I stated are not in those little squares which are pages although I did edit some of those in Popular Science on recall. Very recently, within the last month or less, a person posted to me to "validate" a book that was completed that he had done. I can prove this if so desired but I would do that in private email as opposed to shaming the person in any way. Anyhow, I looked at the work as I was not used to "validating" anyone's work. I actually thought validating was done by a group of people when the book is submitted to them. So, I refused to validate the book and I am aware the fellow didn't like that I would not validate his work. He has been offered a position as administrator so I expected he knew what he was doing. *I* had not read that book where he wanted me to validate the pages. I thought at the very least somebody had to look over every page and then validate and I wasn't going to validate an entire book that I had no interest in and partly because it would take me away from my own projects, one being 52 volumes of the Southern Historical Society Papers where AdamBMorgan and I were working on. Time passed and I supposed it really didn't matter that one could validate his own work because after-all, who already knows the work best. The fellow told me that nobody is going to take 30 minutes to read every page and he is more knowledgeable on this than I was. The story is longer but you can get the gist of where my thinking was in that past which was a short time ago. At this point I think we need a way to talk about these things without telling the world. It is difficult to talk and not give away a hint as to who the person was. E-mail my private mail and I can prove these things to you but use your "Jeep" account as opposed to a different name or alias. That mess came to me on my talk page and I didn't know the rules about it. I became more relaxed and thought I knew my work than a stranger passing by marking things"validated" fast. So it appeared that door was open and I believed all work must be validated and initially by a "group of people". I hope that by writing this I can prevent some things in the future. Again, I can prove my statements--and I followed that "leader". Kindest regards, —William Maury Morris II ^Talk 06:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I did not see where anyone, believes you were intending to do wrong. As I outline below, we are a community of volunteers, working towards similar goals, as best we can. Trying to keep each other and the project on the same track.

One of the reasons we require multiple individuals to validate articles is because different people have different approaches to validation, as well as different perceptions. It is not uncommon to ask someone to review your work, though randomly selecting someone is often not successful, we are all volunteers on the project, working wherever our interests lead us. Wikisource:Proofread of the Month is the best place to suggest a work for community involvement. For myself I mostly just work to get my project to the proofread state and maybe someone will come along in a month or a decade and validate it. As for how long one takes to proofread a page; on Latin for beginners (1911) many of the pages take me an hour or more each, some times it takes a calendar week to get through a page. On other pages where OCR is good, and/or I am validating others proofreads it may take only a minute or so. Just do the best you can is all anyone can ask.

As for admins, you should read Wikisource:Adminship being an admin is really nothing special. Access to extra tools, some level of familiarity with WS policy, and a track record of not repeatedly doing stupid stuff. Some tend to be more active in the the community then others. Wikisource is the ultimate family democracy, there is no chain of command, there is no one "in charge". We find ourselves together joined by mutual interest, we seldom all agree, we make decisions that others change, and we all live happily together. We have processes for settling difficulties, that generally (but not always) work out well. There are levels of access; admin, bureaucrat, stewards, etc. each doing what suits them best. Levels of access are granted by the community, based on history of contributions to the project. Jeepday (talk) 11:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that yesterday when I wrote the above I was trying to explain and willing to prove how I got myself into trouble. When rules are made or suggestions are made it is best to know how someone gets him or herself into trouble. There were some areas I think you pointed out, and where I did go and read, I saw how I got myself into trouble although I did not know of those rules. When I first came to place an old book on wikisource that was all I ever intended. Therefore, I did not read many rules and this was a fairly long time back. I just did my own thing as shown on my user page with books I placed on wikisource with nobody's help -- except Billinghurst would point out things to me once in a while. These things we do now were unfamiliar to me and especially the code. I have learned as I go by copying other's methods. There are a lot of fantastic people here with the use of code. It appears we are editing for books to be printed out thus the rules of "validating". In the old works large lettering is often used but with the "transcluded"? works with the squares (pages) the lettering situation is different. Instead of the original works using large lettering we are to use words which is the opposite of the original old books. Yet we are supposed to make them look identical as possible. Why the change to small lettering when the old books used large lettering? The large lettering stands out better. Recently I asked Billinghurst (about the images of the Navy book I am working on now) whether we were to change the orientation of the image in the book or leave it upside down. He stated that there was no right or wrong way. So, I orientate the images for online reading after I have cleaned them of the yellow, et cetera. But in that answer <someone answered and wrote something to the effect of "Yadada" "too much white space, no margin, orientation &c" which pointed that we were working to have books printed. There is a printing company connected to Wikisource. I think it is called Wikiprint but I can check for any correction. I believe you know what I mean. We collect pages we want printed into a book which is very nice! The company sells you that book. Part of the money goes back into the wikisystem and by this I refer to the many nations that area shows that have wiki<whatever>. Thus (I think) enters the "coding" and "validating" for the process of printing and selling. I thank you for your intelligent reply above. Best regards, Maury (—William Maury Morris II ^Talk 15:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

http://pediapress.com/ (—William Maury Morris II ^Talk 16:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)