User talk:Jeepday/Archive 1

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search

Encyclopedia Britannica[edit]

Welcome to Wikisource (although you've been here a while!) and thanks for adding to EB1911. When I am adding pages I find the easiest source for text is http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/ which has the individual articles e.g. Mint. To copy and paste the text without any of the formatting used on the website, you can use the w:Firefox CleanHide extension which allows you to remove the formatting before copying it. Jrank is not a perfect source so the copied text should probably be proofread and formatted against the page scans here on Wikisource. If this is not any easier for you feel free to carry on as you are! Suicidalhamster 23:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I just took a look. Those are pretty ugly as well, I guess it does not matter where you get the OCR from you still have to have to proof it pretty well, and I am used to google as a reference source from my work on Wikipedia at W:Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles. I really like the User:Tim Starling/ScanSet TIFF demo that you pointed me to, it is sooo... much easier to read. Jeepday 00:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Specifically regarding your question on page size, I prefer to see a work kept together on a single page unless it is approaching 200kb, which the Mint article isnt. There is a EB1911 Style manual which isnt definitive, so feel free to ask queries at the project talk page or at the Scriptorium.
Which images are you considering uploading to Commons? If it is images from the EB1911 article that you wish to upload, that is touched on in the EB1911 style manual, however a strict naming convention hasnt been devised, yet. :-)
If it is page scans that you want to upload to Commons, please upload complete DJVU files if possible. If you need help setting up a transcription project, ask on the transcription talk page. John Vandenberg (chat) 21:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I am thinking about cutting the images out of the TIFF files from User:Tim Starling/ScanSet TIFF demo and loading them to commons for the article Mint. Thanks for the answer on page size, I will leave mint complete then. Jeepday 21:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
That is a good idea. Wikisource:WikiProject 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Style Manual#images has some useful pointers, and you might be able to find a "best practise" by looking at the existing image names in commons:Category:PD Britannica. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The page scans suggest that the Mint (plant) section is a different article to Mint (coin), so I would support splitting the article in this way and listing it twice on the volume 18 page, rather than splitting it because of excessive size. Suicidalhamster 21:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I was having similar thoughts, any thoughts on naming? One thought is to uses "MINT, botanically Menlha" and the other is to use "Mint (plant)", on Wikipedia I would use "Mint (plant)" and not give it a second thought, but on Wikisource the rule "not add or delete text" comes into play. Jeepday 23:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
From what I have seen, disambiguation of EB1911 pages is being done in the same fashion as happens on Wikipedia. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Move completed, still working on 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Mint (coin) (still a page and half to proof read) but I am done with 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Mint (plant). Feel free to point out if I could have done something different. Jeepday 00:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc[edit]

The best method of improving this work is to copy and paste the gutenberg text onto the pagescans available at Index:Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc.djvu. As far as I can see, it was not divided into two volumes; perhaps that was done much later, or was a creative addition by the project gutenberg peoples. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Headers[edit]

Hello,

If you make a table of contents before upload the work, the headers will be added automatically. That's just to save you work. ;) See The Essays of Montaigne, for example.Yann 20:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc was already started when I got working on it. where are the directions for doing it, so it will be easier next time? Jeepday 20:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

U. G. Krishnamurti[edit]

Please check the copyright tag on the book "thought is your enemy" again. It is there. I believe it's the third paragraph. If you wish, you can see it in original form here: http://www.ugkrishnamurti.net/ugkrishnamurti-net/enemy0.htm 83.132.128.199 11:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, I am telling you that you have missed it. Go to the history of the book. It is there. Look for it in the third paragraph, right at the top. It's the same copyright tag that appears in the other books.83.132.128.199 12:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

DJVU[edit]

Please check my last 10 or contributions Special:Contributions/Jeepday, let me know where I need to improve my methods please Jeepday 22:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

  1. 22:33, 21 June 2008 (hist) (diff) Page:Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc.djvu/11‎ (not include print header) (top)
  2. 22:29, 21 June 2008 (hist) (diff) Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc/Translator's Preface‎ (djvu - first) (top)
  3. 22:27, 21 June 2008 (hist) (diff) N Page:Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc.djvu/11‎ (→Not proofread)
  4. 22:24, 21 June 2008 (hist) (diff) N Page:Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc.djvu/10‎ (→Proofread) (top)
  5. 22:22, 21 June 2008 (hist) (diff) N Page:Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc.djvu/9‎ (→Proofread) (top)
  6. 22:20, 21 June 2008 (hist) (diff) N Page:Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc.djvu/8‎ (→Proofread) (top)
  7. 22:19, 21 June 2008 (hist) (diff) Page:Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc.djvu/7‎ (→Proofread) (top)
  8. 22:18, 21 June 2008 (hist) (diff) N Page:Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc.djvu/7‎ (→OCR)
  9. 22:17, 21 June 2008 (hist) (diff) N Page:Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc.djvu/6‎ (→Proofread) (top)
  10. 22:16, 21 June 2008 (hist) (diff) N Page:Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc.djvu/5‎ (→Proofread) (top)
  11. 22:16, 21 June 2008 (hist) (diff) N Page:Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc.djvu/4‎ (→Proofread) (top)

I have proofread all of those pages, making changes as I went. The main suggestion I have is to not worry about handwritten notes on the page, and use {{blank page}} to record blank pages. Also, the system requires that someone else validate any pages you create, so you can make mistakes or not use all the correct templates - the most important part is getting the text right. The rest is all window dressing. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Honored[edit]

I'm honored by the decision, but I think it would be best to wait a month or so before nominating me. I'm in the middle of multiple Wikisource projects right now, one of which being fixing my History of Iowa blunders. I'll also have no internet access for three weeks starting July 16. I'll let you know in August if I'm ready. Thanks, Psychless 20:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I look forward to hearing from you in August, I hope your three weeks goes well. Jeepday (talk) 20:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
My three weeks went very well, and I'm ready to be nominated. Psychless 01:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I am glad to present - Wikisource:Administrators#Psychless, Jeepday (talk) 10:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Template Copyvio[edit]

Hello,

You don't need to replace the content with the template "Copyvio". Just add it below the header. Regards, Yann 19:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

WOW, that is cool, I just posted a message over at W:Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems to see if they want to use the same magic over there. Thanks :) Jeepday (talk) 20:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc/corresponding index[edit]

Great work! —Giggy 06:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

O Dalriadan Land[edit]

Hey there, just wondering where can the information on the copyright of O Dalriadan Land. That is to say, where is there evidence that this is indeed copyrighted material? Grampben

The history is in the deletion history of the Wikipedia article w:O Dalriadan Land, this is the school song of w:Dalriada School. Per Wikisource:Copyright policy All works on Wikisource must be in the public domain or released under a license compatible with the free content definition. It is the responsibility of the contributor to assert compatibility with Wikisource's license. In the US copyright automatically exists, the question is not "is there evidence that this is indeed copyrighted material?", the question that must always be answered is "where is the evidence that this is NOT copyrighted material?". Jeepday (talk) 08:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


Possible Copyright Violation?[edit]

I received a message that I might have posted a copyright violation. Does this mean I could encounter legal trouble? Please say no!

Agomulka 22:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

No, The pages have been blanked (see Eridu Genesis) while the community discusses (see Wikisource:Possible copyright violations) if they are truly copyright violations. It is important that you only post public domain works as anything else most be removed. If you have any questions you ask at Wikisource:Scriptorium‎ for clarification. Jeepday (talk) 11:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Author:Carl Gustav Jung[edit]

The listings for this author appear to be misleading. It's nice to have a bibliography, but the mission of this site is to include available material. I'm familiar with the Princeton edition, but in a number of cases works and even some translations were produced before 1923, notably with Long's [Collected Papers on] Analytical Psychology published in 1916, The Psychology of Dementia Praecox in 1909, and others. I think there should be more emphasis on what is available. Eclecticology (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I just stumbled across Author:Carl Gustav Jung and Wikipedia:Carl Jung and saw that one had what the other needed and moved it [1]. Jeepday (talk) 22:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Oy[edit]

Quisling. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Albert Schweitzer 00:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL, Had to look both of them up wikt:oy, wikt:quisling. Jeepday (talk) 00:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Final push for the Proofread of the Month...[edit]

This month's Proofread of the Month, Index:The Pilgrim Cookbook.djvu, is still a ways away from being fully validated. However, we're within striking distance.

If all ten members proofread just two (but preferably three) pages a day, we'll be able to finish the book before the end of the month.

We can do it. :) EVula // talk // 01:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Congrats![edit]

Congratulations on becoming an administrator! I look forward to dozens of heated arguments in the future as we finally beat the project into an agreed-upon prettier shape. Until then, feed your karma, save orphans from AIDS and help keep the world clean...all by supporting Wikisource:Collaboration of the Week! You can even add {{CotW}} to your userpage so that you can remind yourself, rather than having obnoxious reminders from me!

You are flagged for sysop. Good luck!--BirgitteSB 21:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Aye, congrats. Hope to see lots more of you in the future. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Isaac Brock 21:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Chapter move[edit]

I believe those guidelines don't apply for this work because there was no chapter division in the original work (no Chapter 1, Chapter 2, etc.). The new page names match the original section names (Page:The Pilgrim Cookbook.djvu/7). Psychless 14:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

If Wikisource:Style guide#General guidelines guidelines don't apply which do? Jeepday (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
The general guidelines do somewhat apply (I should have caught this earlier): "The section name[s] should reflect those in the original work." Calling a section on soups in a cookbook "Chapter 1" is ridiculous; a cookbook is not a story. Psychless 21:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Your argument that "The general guidelines do somewhat apply" is not persuasive, when one reads the paragraph in it's entirety. Do you know what the motivation behind calling for numbering rather then naming of chapters is? I am asking because I numbered the sections based on the guideline, and under the assumption there was a good cause calling for that usage, and the guideline should be updated to include the rationale or to provide for naming conventions non-chaptered work. Jeepday (talk) 11:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
The guidelines are probably based on the fact that most works have numbered sections. But some works, like cookbooks and encyclopedias, don't number their sections. For example, we don't call 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Aaron's Rod "Article 15". Therefore, I would propose changing:
Subpage titles should be separated from the parent title by a forward slash ([[Title/Chapter 1]]). Sections should be numbered, not named ([[Title/Chapter 1]] and not [[Title/The Dog Returns]]). The section name should reflect those in the original work (Chapter II, Chapter 2, Act 2, et cetera).
to "Subpage titles should be separated from the parent title by a forward slash ([[Title/Chapter 1]]). Sections should be numbered, named ([[Title/Chapter 1]] and not [[Title/The Dog Returns]]), unless the sections were not numbered in the original work. The section name should reflect those in the original work (Chapter II, Chapter 2, Act 2, et cetera)."
In addition, the cookbooks Many Ways for Cooking Eggs, Made-Over Dishes, 365 foreign dishes, and American Cookery also have unnumbered sections and use the same style I changed The Pilgrim Cook Book to. The Boston Cooking-School Cook Book did have numbered sections and, therefore, uses the Chapter X format. (See Wikisource:Cookbooks.) Psychless 22:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Seem like a good idea, took it to Wikisource:Scriptorium#Subpage_title_formats for review. Jeepday (talk) 23:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Delete[edit]

Thank you for letting me know about it, and for doing it. Thank you.24.65.69.8 00:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Admin[edit]

Jeepday: yes, gratefully. Thank you.- --Zyephyrus (talk) 18:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank-you spam[edit]

Thank you for supporting me for adminship. :) I'll try to make you glad you did it. So here's a belated Nadezhda "Harry S. Truman" Durova campaign song. All the best, Durova (talk) 05:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm Just Wild About Harry (help | file info or download)

moved comment[edit]

I hope you dont mind; I have moved your second comment to Talk:Qur'an#George Sale edition. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

  • no problem

WikiMoney[edit]

Hey, following your (and everybody's) contributions to the discussion on the Scriptorium about buying books online specifically for Wikisource, I've created Wikisource:Purchases and request you all check it out; add books you see for sale anywhere online (not just eBay) that you'd like to see some collaborative interest on, and sign up to help on existing listings. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Bahá'u'lláh. 15:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

SmallCaps[edit]

I appreciate this template, a very useful one. It is shortened like this {{sc|hello}} in the edittools, isn't it?

What would you think of this idea: to have these templates {{0/4}} {{1/4}} {{2/4}} {{3/4}} {{4/4}} in order to obtain quisckly the icons 00% ~ 25% ~ 50% ~ 75% ~ 100% . Would it be useful? On fr.ws we use them.

Thanks and regards,---Zyephyrus (talk) 12:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Your welcome, Hello, yep I guess it is, I never noticed before. As for {{0/4}} {{1/4}} {{2/4}} {{3/4}} {{4/4}} I have no opinion, I just use the selection button. Jeepday (talk) 23:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I use them to show where a book or a chapter is, for instance here we can see that three chapters were {{3/4}} and all the other ones were {{4/4}}.---Zyephyrus (talk) 00:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Ah ah, I see. That looks good. Can you make them automatically update? Jeepday (talk) 01:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
It would be very useful; but unfortunately I don't know how to do that. Perhaps somebody more gifted than me will do it? (ThomasV might but he has no time). For the time being I can create the simplest templates, with icons and categories. ---Zyephyrus (talk) 21:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Re:Reverted edit[edit]

Hey Jeepday-

The Mishnah is composed of several books, called "tractates." They are all basically volumes of the same work, so it is appropriate to provide navigational links between the end of one and the beginning of the next; I am going to restore my edit. All the best. --Eliyak T·C 01:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the explanation, sounds reasonable. Jeepday (talk) 23:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Re:Admin?[edit]

I'm flattered, but I have only just come back to Wikisource these past couple weeks! I'm not even sure I'll be sticking around. Also, I don't really plan on becoming more involved at WS than my current narrow purview of contributing to the Judaism material. Thanks, though. --Eliyak T·C 16:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Boer War[edit]

I'm tempted to undelete to encourage more discussion, since the tiny discussion thusfar had revealed no evidence of it having been copyrighted - but thought it would be more polite to tip my hat to you and let you do it if you're wanting. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Joseph McCabe. 00:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Try posting it for un-delete at Wikisource:Possible copyright violations and see if that makes anything happen. I deleted it because I just am not seeing any way we can leave it up there longer. "To protect the legal interests of the Wikimedia Foundation, these will be deleted unless there are strong reasons to keep them within at least two weeks. If there is reasonable doubt, they will be deleted." Jeepday (talk) 01:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Diary of Joseph Smith, Jr. (1832-1834)[edit]

I may be missing something, but can you please explain why you marked this revision as patrolled. Thank you. Jan1naD (talkcontrib) 16:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Because you had already reverted the vandalism, at that point no one else needs to check the edit. JeepdaySock (talk) 11:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Of course! Thanks for being patient, I think I had gone too long without coffee. Jan1naD (talkcontrib) 12:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Index:Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc.djvu is now PotM[edit]

… it took us a while to get it there, however, it seemed like a nice idea. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note :) JeepdaySock (talk) 10:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

He is all yours[edit]

Had enough of everything being about me, and not about the works, or accepting of the reasoning. I am not going to let it be, or is that continue to be, personal. I am not going to waste more breath with their matters. My opinion, with reasoning, is there, and I won't be, well in that discussion. — billinghurst sDrewth 17:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :) JeepdaySock (talk) 10:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't take the bait[edit]

Thinking outloud - w:Wikipedia:Don't take the bait JeepdaySock (talk) 18:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Elephant stamp
for job well done.
billinghurst (talk)

sDrewth shimmies[edit]

Author talk:Charles Harry Dant wink By the way, if you have others, give me a buzz, research on people is one of my good skills. I don't do miracles, though I have an excellent library of resources online and off. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: Admin[edit]

Hey Jeepday,

I will gladly accept a nomination for adminship and want to help. What's the next step?

Thank you for considering me. - Theornamentalist (talk) 03:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

You have been nominated Wikisource:Administrators#Theornamentalist, Thank you for saying yes. JeepdaySock (talk) 10:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Frances Brundage[edit]

Not much in my sources, though I find that there is biographical info ...

Name: Frances Brundage
Source Citation:

  • Biography Index. A cumulative index to biographical material in books and magazines. Volume 14: September, 1984-August, 1986. New York: H.W. Wilson Co., 1986.
  • Childhood in Poetry. A catalogue, with biographical and critical annotations, of the books of English and American poets comprising the Shaw Childhood in Poetry Collection in the Library of the Florida State University. Second Supplement. By John Mackay Shaw. Detroit: Gale Research, 1976.

Re the comment[edit]

… and the non-answer. Pretty much my position and one that I tried to express directly a little earlier. I have no concerns over the claimed identify, just the existing approach. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Earle as a Reformer (1948) copyright status[edit]

Hello! If you are willing and/or able, I would like to get a second opinion (at the suggestion of Geo. Orwell III—for my benefit) as to the copyright status of Thomas Earle as a Reformer (1948). More details are located on my Talk Page. Thanks for your time! Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done JeepdaySock (talk) 15:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Transwiki[edit]

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[edit]

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)

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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"[edit]

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)

Masefield[edit]

I am concerned about this close. I was just checking up on the status of this yesterday and I note that you marked it as "Re-post to generate more discussion" less than two weeks ago. There is clear indication that the work was published after 1923, at least 1926 and probably 1927 or later. Inductiveload claims 1929 but the reference is no longer available. The basic work doesn't have a notice and I would grant that it is PD, but the subsidiary works - the book reviews, etc. - are from other sources, such as the New York Times. Publishing this without evidence that the proponents have researched all of the authors/publishers seems to me to tread very carelessly on the copyright rules. I don't think this was ready to be closed yet considering there have been no posts that cite to actual checks done on any of the authors.--Doug.(talk contribs) 12:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The following copied from .djvu Talk page for Masefield text:
Not necessarily helpful where copyright is concerned, but for what it's worth,—Sherman's "In behalf..." portion of the text can be found in part within American Criticism, Nineteen Twenty-Six (p. 231), which references Sherman's article as being "from The New York Herald Tribune "Books," January 10, 1926." It seems almost as though this text is a sort of prelude—or introductory piece—to perhaps Sherman's four-volume compilation of Masefield's work? much like the intro to the older editions of Britannica's Great Books of the Western World set (I can't vouch for the newer editions). I dunno. Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I have re-opened the discussion. Jeepday (talk) 10:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Doug, No hurry just wanted to point out, and give you time to consider. Wikisource:Possible_copyright_violations#File:John_Masefield.djvu retains the community consensus of 3 to keep. With yourself thinking more research needs to be conducted and documented first. We have brought attention to the discussion through several edits and no changes of existing votes have occurred, nor has anyone supported your request for more research. All of the works would have become PD no later then 1957 (given 1929 for the book), in these cases it is not possible to prove PD, only show probability through lack of identified renewal. The only way to prove copyright is to identify the original source & publication of an underlying work, and show that it was renewed in a timely fashion. Three members of the community have persisted in the position that such is not required in this case, and the remainder of the community has remained silent. Given this if there is no change, the closure will have to be Keep Following the community consensus. Keeping in mind, that at any point someone the question of copyright can be brought up again. Jeepday (talk) 12:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Jeepday, thanks. My concern is that other, than you closing and reopening the discussion, Angr is the only one to comment since my original post last August and he didn't really address my post. Early on - and until my first post - the work was actually misidentified as being by Masefield. Although I understand that we can rarely prove or disprove copyright in such cases, I see zero evidence that anyone has researched it and I think that's critical. I think it's fairly safe to assume that Billinghurst and Inductiveload did any copyright research under Masefield's name as otherwise they likely would have changed the author on the work. Even Angr's comment indicates that he's not convinced that it was even published after 1923, but a review of the text shows that isn't possible. The early comments, and even the later ones, seems to still suggest a belief that a lack of notice and renewal of this work is controlling. It's not. The question is whether the NY Times book review and other reviews were copyrighted, most likely they were, whether they were first published before 1923 and if not, whether they were renewed and whether that renewal suffices since the renewal was probably by the NYTimes and not by the author. The 1957 date is only meaningful if the answer to the renewal questions is "no".
    • I've never really thought that community consensus is a valid way to resolve copyright issues. It may be a valid way to resolve hard cases in the absence of guidance from the Foundation. But I don't see this as a hard case, I see it as a case of insufficient information. Is there a rule about 3 votes? Or are you simply saying that those 3 votes reflect consensus? I simply believe that the burden is on the proponents to show that they have researched the matter thoroughly, which in this case means demonstrating under what theory the book reviews are PD. Simply saying "no evidence of renewal" is not satisfactory unless they have researched the names of the authors at least. No one has done that yet. I don't really think that we can say that because nobody has responded to my points, there is consensus that they don't apply.--Doug.(talk contribs) 14:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Consensus is shown by the lack of opposition to the clear margin of keep, this is somewhat discussed at w:WP:SNOW. If consensus is the correct tool to determine copy right status I can't speak to, but what other choices do we as a community have?
      • In this case while no one has documented a full attempt to validate the copyright status of all the works, I would expect that many have looked in and found nothing, but being an incomplete search did not document it. In much the same manor as you; you have alluded to sufficient research to identify at least some of the authors and where/when the original was published. but you have not documented it in the discussion, nor the results of any findings.
      • It only takes the finding of one copyrighted work to end the discussion as delete, as we don't keep partial works so it would all go with the one finding of existing copyright.
      • If you really care, take the first step; list the different works, their author and any information available about publication, and the findings you have so far. Maybe in this way you can encourage others to take a stronger interest in the pursuit. Jeepday (talk) 18:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
        • I think my position amounts to opposition, even though I haven't said Oppose. I really don't think SNOW applies to a discussion where there are two old supports, one new one and one continuing concern that amounts to an opposition.
        • I don't know that I would assume that. I haven't really researched any of the authors beyond identifying who some of them are, which I documented by linking their authorspace pages from the file and index pages.
        • I agree, it is exactly for this reason that all of the works have to be researched - though in this case, I do think an argument could be made for excising any work that is copyrighted from the scans, but that's just a hypothetical, the point is that we don't know that they are all PD
        • I agree again, I hadn't been very active for a while and had sort of forgotten this work. The main reason I asked you to reopen it is that I had just checked on it a day or two before and hadn't had a chance to do anything with it. I do hope to get this research done and actually fairly soon. I was really hoping Billinghurst or Inductiveload would reply to my concerns but since that didn't happen, it is well past time to take a deeper look. Unfortunately, I'm in the middle of an international move at the moment and serious copyright renewal research takes a bit of time. I hope at some point someone will comment on the periodical renewal issue, I really don't know what the answer is to that.--Doug.(talk contribs) 19:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
          • I took your response as conditional oppose, and take the lack of change to previous votes as continued keep. If you fall off the wiki during the move, and it gets closed again without further input, you can always bring it to WS:CV again. Jeepday (talk) 19:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

update[edit]

You deleted Substitution for the Testimony of KSM -- based on a concern it was a copyright violation.

Please see http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/defense/941.pdf Would you agree this establishes this document is in the public domain?

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was in CIA custordy at the time this "susstitution" was prepared.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 20:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Posted for reconsideration Wikisource:Possible_copyright_violations#Substitution_for_the_Testimony_of_KSM. Jeepday (talk) 22:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Nah[edit]

Nah [3] Egg Centric (talk) 00:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Permission granted. If you have OTRS access you can verify for yourself (although take a look at the note I made on the talk page - I sent to the commons OTRS rather than en OTRS. As apparently the OTRS process can take a month I've reverted it back, which I assume is OK? Egg Centric (talk) 14:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

blips on the radar screen and pinging on sonar don't fit here[edit]

Administrator on Wikisource: When I saw your message I was actually stunned. I sat here just reading it and re-reading it. I have looked over the link you left about Administrators. My view is that to be an Administrator on Wikisource is one of the grandest honors possible on Wikisource. I do have a serious respect for such people with the technological know-how but I don't have those technological skills. I have never tried to learn all that exists in the skills area because editing text was always my joy. I have thought over the question for several hours and only moments ago when I tried to pull a book into Wikisource and failed (so far) I decided that I am not qualified for such an elite position, or at least not at this point in time. It is a great honor to be trusted with a position as administrator and it is also an honor just being asked if one wants to become an administrator! However, I fully believe a person must be qualified for the position and again, I don't feel qualified. I sincerely do thank you for the offer though as it will always be an honor to me just to be asked. Most respectfully, Maury (—William Maury Morris II Talk 09:09, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Technical skills are great to have, but the are not what makes an admin. It clear from my interactions with you that you have the most important quality of a potential admin; a desire to maintain Wikisource. Another important skill is people skills, you are always polite and courteous when dealing with other users. You have an ever increasing knowledge of Wikisource policies and practices. The only area I see that you really need more experience in is copyright. You can continue to learn more about WS policy by watching and/or participating in the discussions at, Wikisource:Scriptorium & Wikisource:Proposed deletions these are the two main areas where discussion of day to day operation of Wikisource occurs. Wikisource:Possible copyright violations is where we discuss copyright issues, by it's nature Wikisource's biggest hurdle is making sure that content meets the copyright requirements to be posted here. Copyright law is tough, and we don't have lawyers or courtrooms to give us answers. We are all just lay people who care about Wikisource, we do our best to work out the solutions. If you want to be an admin or not, I know you care about Wikisource, so I would encourage you to watch and participate at Wikisource:Possible copyright violations. All the technical skills in the Wiki world will not make you a admin on Wikisource, but a good grasp of WS:WWI & WS:CV will. If/when you feel qualified and have a desire to be nominated let me know, I would be most pleased to nominate you for the position. If you have any questions don't hesitate to ask. Jeepday (talk) 11:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, please, I have two questions. (1) Do administrators work in shifts and (2) Could I get my name used here changed to something anonymous [and short] to strangers that I would encounter as you have done? From reading, that was stated as good advice and presented to me and I agree with it when one is an administrator. Too many devilish or childish people like "payback". You are also absolutely right in that I care a lot about Wikisource and that includes protecting it. But I have been protective of people and good things all of my life as it is my nature. Kindest regards and thank you for all of the information you have provided. —William Maury Morris II Talk 20:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
1. There are no shifts, we are here when we are here. If you don't do anything for a long time (like a year) during annual confirmation you loose your admin tools, but keep your normal privileges (like you have now).
2. You can change your name, see this page on Wikipedia, for some discussion about it. Given the number of times you have used your real name, it most unlikely you would be able "hide" under a new name. Once anything hits the web, it is essentially available for anyone who cares to look, and has moderate skills.
  • Many admins, use their real name, and one I know on Wikipedia changed from something anonymous to a real name after becoming an admin, see here my discussion on name changes with him. If I had it to do over, at this point I probably would use my real name to start an account. Your real name is not as identifying as you make think unless you provide substantial other info to go with it. About the only reason I don't change it now, is I have been Jeepday since my first edits in 2006, and it is used a name/word in so many places that change would only lead to confusion. Jeepday (talk) 23:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I also still have my Brother Officer account which I could use and then use this lengthy family name for editing books. I once just used "Maury" which I preferred but I forgot my password when I went overseas and came back, so I lost "Maury". Too, I have provided substantial personal information on both of these accounts as I too have been here on WS (I think and on WP since around 2006. I used aliases when I first arrived at WP and WS because of not knowing the situations. Much later, I wanted to credit my own name on the books I transcribed and edited. It is something my descendants may be interested in. Thank you for the information, Jim. With all due respect, Maury (—William Maury Morris II Talk 00:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
  • The offer for Administrator remains an honor. Your help in this discussion has been kind, fruitful, and polite. I have read the areas that you have pointed me to. #2 In reference to the word "hide", that wasn't what I was thinking about. I was more concerned with my family names and especially "Maury". As a Virginian who is raised strongly with family-in-history, which I don't think it is only a Virginian thing but as a Virginian it remains my heritage and "my thing" and especially as I have collected many years now. In the reading of deleting this account, or keeping it, in order to serve as an administrator, I do not want either. I appreciate all you have taught me but my desire remains to follow my own desirable paths in life—one of which, as a hobby, is to edit and save old books on Wikisource and to assist others in small ways when I can. I mean no offense in any manner. There must be others desiring an administrator position or there would be no voting on the situation. This url is a book, in chapters, and serve as proof that I do not try to "hide" my name since that book has been on I-net since 1993 when I was working Virginia Internet Technology Committee sitting up Internet itself for U.Va. faculty, staff, and students, before there were webpages and browsers, using only a Unix system with its odd commands such as trn (thread read news) &c., &c. I do thank you for the offer of being an Administrator on Wikisource. It is a true honor but not one that I desire because I have strong desires for many other things including making audio books that are illustrated and in in color from what was not long ago "forgotten books", forgotten history, and forgotten people. Think of it as the ultimate update for this year as technology will continue to advance swiftly in many directions as more time passes. Most Respectfully, Maury (—William Maury Morris II Talk 06:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC) http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/academic/history/marshall/military/civil_war_usa/D_H_Maury/DHM_01.TXT
Thank you for considering the offer, may you have much happy editing ahead. JeepdaySock (talk) 10:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Jeepday, I have continued thinking about that Administratorship you offered. You recently posted again for Administrators on Scriptorium. I would like to try being an administrator if only I could find some area where I can handle. But I do not know enough, nor do I feel any confidence about nor even like "copyright" that you previously asked me about. Is there any place that I might be able to handle. I assume you have seen what I do on WikiSource so please draw from that. I would use another account name though regardless of how often I have used this one (since circa 1969) Respectfully, William Maury Morris II (talk) 05:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

If you were nominated, these are the first places people not familiar with you would look, I think they look fine.
William Maury Morris II (talkcontribs) • SULYAECenWS activityGlobal
William Maury Morris II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log - SUL)
I have also been thinking about my recommendation and about you and copyright, you know enough to know where to go if you have a question. You are active on Wikisource:Scriptorium, have expressed an interest in Wikisource:WikiProject Social media and could be a great help at Wikisource:Maintenance of the Month. You have a great habit of communicating with user on talk pages. You also have enough experience to monitor Special:RecentChanges. While all these things are places you are/could be helpful, where ever you want to help is where you can do the most good. Having admin tools will be most helpful to you personally in clean up (delete or move) of mainspace works. You have PDF skills and tools, that would also be helpful there. What ever you decide to use the tools for I know it will be for the good of the project, and that is what counts. What it really comes down to is community trust, you are active on the project and in the community, and you have the communities trust; That is the primary criteria for adminship, you have it. I also notice that per Yet Another Edit Counter you have over 8,000 edit patrols. Just say the word and I will happily post your nomination. JeepdaySock (talk) 15:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay, Jeepday, I will give it a try. I hope that you know I don’t know what I will be getting into. I do not like to disappoint people and specifically in this statement, I refer here on Wikisource. I will use my William Maury Morris II account. But do know this, I have been here a lot longer than 2010! Add these up with that, 2006 works completed. This account (Brother Officer) alone goes back to April 2006 [4] and so does another account of mine, "William Maury Morris" without the "II" so add those two in please for works done and time on WS. I placed several books on WS before I knew about "sock puppets" and I alternated because I was in competition with myself using these two accounts for work done. It is similar to playing chess against yourself when nobody else is around to play chess. "Exploration of the Valley of the Amazon" volume 1 by Lieut. Wm Lewis Herndon and "Exploration of the Valley of the Amazon" volume 2 by Lardner Gibbon are just two of the works I have placed on WS before I started working on books as I do now meaning image beside text. IF ever I was doing something wrong back in 2006 while placing those, and other works on WS, I was not aware of it and Billinghurst assisted me with various things as can be seen when looking at the "history" of a page hither and yon. Respectfully, Brother Officer aka William Maury Morris, and William Maury Morris II and before that, on Wikipedia, I did a LOT of contributing as just "MAURY" when I first started on WP. BTW, there is a gap of history on "Lardner Gibbon" that I can probably fill in now. Now I will go back to my name, my William Maury Morris II account. Brother Officer (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
The information immediately above is accurate. William Maury Morris II (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
P.S. I have had 6 years of Spanish and 1 year of French in the university but that was Long ago. The adage, "If you don't use it, you lose it" is accurate but it can be picked up again. William Maury Morris II (talk) 16:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Are users/editors allowed to vote or comment on the Wikisource:Administrators page? Just curious. Kind regards, Maury ( William Maury Morris II (talk) 18:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, if you can see it you can contribute. Jeepday (talk) 00:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Better now than later[edit]

Hi,

I think it is about time to move or merge the Rudolph copyright discussion from the Admin's board page now even if the discussion is not likely to end anytime soon. It really has overwhelmed the rest of the content & purpose nevermind it's own scope! -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:40, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Done JeepdaySock (talk) 11:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Gazetteer[edit]

Hello! The link to the gazetteer is available here. It was first printed in 1883-84 but this one is a reprint. So, I am not sure whether I can upload it or not. Please check and let me know. Also, please tell me how to upload documents and images with suitable examples. Thanks. Vishal14k (talk) 06:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Without doubt if you had a scan of the original 1884 work it could be upload to commons, and entered as text to Wikisource. There is something of a grey area when the work has been re-edited so I posted the copyright question to Wikisource:Possible copyright violations#Gazetteer to check for consensus on the copyright question. Jeepday (talk) 10:14, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: Photography: Theory and Practice[edit]

Unfortunately Index:PhotographyTheoryAndPracticeOCRed.djvu is not working properly on Canadian Wikilivres, so I am deferring the deletion of the pages, unless someone can fix the problem there.--Jusjih (talk) 13:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Admin offer[edit]

Hi Jeepday! My name is Mackenziemrk, and I would like to be an admin on here. I am on at least 2-4 hours a day usually, and have about 10 books I am working on (I like variety). I may seem new to Wikisource, or at least not a veteran, but I know more than you would think. I watched User:Tannertsf work on here for a while, as he is my cousin. He is gone, and now I am running my OWN show. If you have an idea of what I can improve on, just let me know.

Thanks for the consideration! - Lucyrocks=) (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey Mackenziemrk, I am glad you have expressed an interest in becoming an admin on WS. As I have not worked with you much yet so give me a couple days to look around and get familiar with your work. JeepdaySock (talk) 14:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Looks like you are on the right path but not yet ready for nomination. Having a family member teach you about WS is a great start down the path, now you need to work on creating a stronger edit history for yourself. I am sure you have reviewed Wikisource:Adminship and know that both strength of edit history and variety are important. When you are nominated these will be the first two places that users not familiar with you will look.
Mackenziemrk (talkcontribs) • SULYAECenWS activityGlobal
Mackenziemrk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log - SUL)
Take a look at the two current candidates Wikisource:Administrators#Nominations_for_adminship and how the community is considering their nominations. Then consider how you can best strengthen your edit history for the journey to adminship. The three strongest steps you can take are;
  1. Continue editing and build up a stronger edit history
  2. Find and area in Category:Wikisource or Category:Wikisource maintenance that appeals to you and contribute to it
  3. I know you are watching Wikisource:Scriptorium, so the next step is contribute to the discussions, this will get the community used to seeing your name and your response style.
I think you have the potential to be an great admin, keep up the good work and we can see if the community agrees. If you have any questions along your path to adminship, do not hesitate to ask me (or any established user in the community). JeepdaySock (talk) 11:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll definitely be looking at those suggestions. - Lucyrocks=) (talk) 12:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus[edit]

Jeepday, I'm puzzled as to why you deleted the front page of the Tractatus, but left all the transcluded chapters there. I know there's a copyright issue with the translation but don't you think you should have deleted Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus/1 etc.? Chris55 (talk) 20:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

So you would have something to do with your new admin powers once you are elected! No just kidding, looks like they got created after I deleted the other part. They are gone now. Jeepday (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I was just trying to add a p.s. I see it isn't on Wikilivres tho it probably could be as it's the Ogden translation not the Pears & McGuinness one and there's lots of his other stuff. If it's a question of copying the partial transcription over there I'd be willing to do it. It was (at one time in the distant past) my favourite book!! But since this one was published in 1922, I'm not sure there's a problem. Ogden died in 1957 so it's certainly ok in Canada. Chris55 (talk) 21:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good Jeepday (talk)
But now I'm doubly puzzled. Why isn't it ok on Wikisource? Chris55 (talk) 21:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
When you go to Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus it will show two deletions, clicking what links here will lead you to the archives, which show Wikisource:Possible_copyright_violations/Archives/2012-05#Tractatus_Logico-Philosophicus, Dang! Now I need to put them back, those were the corrected versions I just deleted... Ok restored. Jeepday (talk) 21:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Glad it's possible to restore these things! The only one now showing red is the root entry which is what I started on about. I had looked up in the meanwhile the Gutenberg version which is also based on Ogden. One of the things I'd like to find is the script for linking up a G version with the djvu one. Seems a waste of time "decompiling" these transcriptions. Chris55 (talk) 21:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
The main page needs to be recreated. Looks like Marc has not worked on it for a while. Jeepday (talk) 22:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I can do that. Chris55 (talk) 22:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

comment[edit]

Jeepday, at this point I am now very tired of worrying. Because of the name I use I must withdraw from the nomination of the possibility of becoming an administrator. I have thought this situation over very seriously and with a lot of regret. Perhaps I will close my account down and create an anonymous account like everyone else. I don't make this decision lightly but instead I make it this obvious decision very seriously. I humbly apologize to you and all others but those who may judge me do not use their real names in full and if they did they would certainly understand this. I was also warned about it openly on Scriptorium not so long ago. Now I also have to hope that the community doesn't look down on me for this necessary decision. The following is a statement I previously wrote here as seen in the above statements, ("I would use another account name though regardless of how often I have used this one (since circa 1969)". —With regrets and sadness, William Maury Morris II (talk) 05:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I understand. Read w:Wikipedia:Clean start for some pointers and also consider using {{Retired}} on the old accounts (also maybe change the passwords and forget them). Let me know if I can be of any assistance before the change.

I have had this account and have worked with it since 2006. It is the position of being an administrator that could cause me problems — from blocking people or whatever else — that would start hard feelings from strangers — and their desire to get back at me (payback) that is the concern. I would be recognized with an alias anyhow and partly due to my editing but more so due to what I choose to work on and any commentary. So, I will probably keep this account and what I have achieved since 2006 here. I thank you for the statements on becoming anonymous though. I may use that in the future. William Maury Morris II (talk) 19:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


After the change by necessity you will appear to be a new user and not mention your old accounts, so I will not recognize you and you will not be able to mention it without making the change pointless. Be aware that admins with the "checkuser" function will likely be able to identify your new account and old account(s) are operated by you, they are bound not to release that information unless there is misuse (i.e. using both accounts in a manor inconsistent with Wikisource:Alternate accounts. Given the your recurring concerns and increasing activity in the community I would encourage you to make a clean start with a new unrelated ID. If you pursue admin after a clean start, there is a strong possibility that the connection will become evident, read Wikisource:Administrators/Archives/Poetlister which was a particularly ugly case of socking combined with adminship. I provided all of the above so you could make an informed decision about making a new start. Regardless of admin status or ID you are the same person if you have concerns that your online activities will lead to real life issues then a name change is in order, being and admin or not will not change anything. You can make an entry at Wikisource:Administrators#William_Maury_Morris_II withdrawing from the nomination. Jeepday (talk) 09:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


It is your choice and you need to feel comfortable with it. You remain a great asset to the community with or without the tools. Jeepday (talk) 23:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The Rats in the Walls[edit]

Hi Jeepday,

Why have you deleted H.P. Lovecraft's "The Rats in the Walls" for copyright reasons, when there is substantial evidence that this work is in the public domain? cf Forrest D. Hartmann's (Arkham House's lawyer and manager) testimony (May 23, 1974): "Insofar as the copyrights are concerned, I can testify that there are no renewal copyrights for any of the H.P. Lovecraft stories that were signed on October 9, 1947 to August Derleth and Donald Wandrei... The forty-six (46) Lovecraft stories contained in Exhibit "B" [The Weird Tales stories] were not renewed by the assignees nor could they do so under the copyright law. Thus all of the stories are now in the public domain with the result that there are no rights contained or effective under the agreement between Donald Wandrei and August Derleth, dated November 8, 1955." http://www.aetherial.net/lovecraft/wandrei-hypothesis.html Taavi (talk) 02:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I deleted The Rats in the Walls after copyright discussion archive 2012-04 and archive 2011-02 in short the community decision was that the Weird_Tales renewal was valid. If you believe that this and other of Lovecraft’s works that we don’t have are truly PD, you can start a debate at Wikisource:Possible copyright violations to restore them. If you have any difficulties I would be more then happy to assist you in getting the debate started. Jeepday (talk) 10:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Pd/1996[edit]

Please review this for me. I thought the documentation should get a little more in-depth than the template box. I tried to explain it more complete and Offered background links. Given the complexity of the topic, I feel it needs another set of eyes.--BirgitteSB 00:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)