User talk:Prosfilaes

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikisource! Thank you for joining the project. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Please consider putting a brief description of yourself on your user page. If you are already a contributor to another Wikimedia project, such as Wikipedia, please mention this on your user page so we know how to contact you. Also, mention which languages you understand if English is not your first language.

In any case, I hope you enjoy donating your time to grow the Wikisource library that is free for everyone to use! In discussions, please "sign" your comments using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question here (click edit) and place {{helpme}} before your question.

Again, welcome! John Vandenberg (chat) 01:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I have set up a transcription project Index:American Poetry 1922.djvu; the text for each page can probably be easily found on the net. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we would love it. The way we do transcription projects is each page of text is added beside the image. For example, go to "Page:American Poetry 1922.djvu/17" , and add the text of Author:Amy Lowells Lilacs. At the top of each page are buttons that navigate to the previous and next pages. While you do that, I will show you how to join the pages together so the reader can see it all on a single page. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it is because at the end of each line, there are a number of tabs, or spaces, or something strange. I am finding the easiest way to fix it is to go to the last character of the line, and then press shift+end then delete. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, American Poetry 1922 and Lilacs (Lowell) have been set up. There are some minor line spacing issues with Lilacs (Lowell); dont be too worried about them, as the "poem" presentation software is being improved. I'll hassle the developer about it to see what further adjustments are required.

I need to head to bed now, but will check your progress tomorrow and help out if you have any queries. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: To Roosevelt[edit]

I hope I did this correctly, but I release my translation into Public Domain.

Thanks for notifying me about the need.

The article: [1]

Re: Paradise Lost[edit]

Thanks for the link and kind note! I had forgotten about the Google Books option. That will help me with my copyediting.

Thanks again!

WordyGirl90 (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Marian Edwardes[edit]

From a quick look-see. The Marian of interest is active in the 1900-1910 period, looks to be UK (advertisement The times 1901). I can see:

  • Marian b.1853 in London, daughter of David and Lydia. Father was MD. Nothing evident in a career-sense, though translation would not necessarily show up. Mother died 1894, so would seem likely that time to strike out and do something and help financially. Also looks to be publication in 1929. Death records after that are available but a bloody nuisance to peruse.
  • Marian b.c1872 (married name) and occupation in 1901 does not seem to be academic, remarried 1904.

-- billinghurst (talk) 04:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Obama Executive Order[edit]

Why did you remove Obama's Executive Order list from the list of US Executive Orders; those of 6 other presidents already have that label, and doesn't it make sense to have all American Presidential Executive orders in one place? Shouldn't not only the Obama listing, but all of the the orders themselves be in that category? Maybe there's something I'm missing- I am fairly new to this, so I thought I'd ask... --Bleemsz (talk) 22:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Three Stories and Ten Poems[edit]

Moved your post to Wikisource:Possible_copyright_violations#Three_Stories_and_Ten_Poems, Jeepday (talk) 23:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Highlights of Copyright Amendments Contained in the URAA[edit]

I think that you asked for this. (If not, then I am a doofus) Viola! You may wish to go and section-ise if you are wishing to call up component. :-) -- billinghurst (talk) 12:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Slanderous edits[edit]

Please see this message, this edit, etc. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's the thing; I don't really care. I don't understand the point of the Wikisource Bible translation, and would expect that if it is to be successful, there would have to be a strong team keeping it together. Fixing things like this would be the job of that team who knows that's good and bad for their translation. My only concern is the set of pages from The Sources for Genesis.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

WS:WWI[edit]

What language would you propose for this policy to clarify what variation of "English" are accepted here? I would like to make a proposal with several options for people to discuss instead of the current straw poll. But I am not sure I can succeed at drafting something for your position. Please feel free to suggest several drafts if you like. I am planning on showing a range of options to discuss.--BirgitteSB 17:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately I am not finding the time to follow through with this right now. My main co-worker started maternity leave this week and I am just swamped. I don't think that we need different proposals if someone else wants to take charge on getting the policy clarified. It was just how I planned to do it, mainly because I am aware of my own strong preference on the issue.--BirgitteSB 13:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank You[edit]

Thank you for fixing the wording on the "Journal of Major Andre" page so it now links to his author's page. It was an enormous help.

Also, thank you for filling me on what was going on with Jonah Musto Sr. That really worried me for awhile. Good thing he's blocked now. Some people just think they can do whatever they want.

Request for opinion[edit]

Hi,

Could you cast your eye over Wikisource:Possible_copyright_violations#Sir_Gerald_Kaufman's_15.01.2009_speech_on_Gaza_Strike_at_House_of_Commons for me? I'm not really sure what should be done in this situation. There seems to be debate about whether or not Gerald Kaufman owns the copyright to the speech or not, and I'm not really very sure in matters of UK work-for-hire laws. (The release is not complete enough, but if he doesn't own the copyright, then there's no point discussing the release at the minute.) Jude (talk) 00:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Template:Copyright-until[edit]

Gday. Not sure whether you have seen the {{Copyright-until}} template or not. Sometimes I will use that template rather than a reversion to cover issues where people have added work. It becomes more about a modification, than a removal. -- billinghurst (talk) 14:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyright search[edit]

Could you pop past User talk:Ansicpl look at the discussion about Propaganda and see if you can assist with the question of whether it is copyright or not. You are far better at that than I. Thanks. -- billinghurst (talk) 01:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Adminship[edit]

Hi. I'd like to nominate you for adminship, if you will accept. I believe your having the tools will be a boon to the community, especially in regards to matters of copyright. Jude (talk) 08:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Tapped on the shoulder![edit]

Due and I have done you in at Wikisource:Administrators#User:Prosfilaes If you are willing to be conscripted, your thumbprint by your nomination would be much appreciated. Regards. billinghurst (talk) 09:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You now have a the sysop flag. Congratulations!--BirgitteSB 18:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Fine[edit]

I'm sure a clear headed administrator will eventually note that the speech was publicly released, per the talk page, and thus you haven't got a leg to stand on, but I'll continue waiting for that day to come. Why you are incapable of realizing this yourself completely perplexes me. -- Kendrick7 (talk) 00:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow[edit]

Dear Prosfilaes, I myself am not certain about the copyright on the works of Joseph Stalin. Under the new retroactive Russian copyright law, the Russian and/or Georgian originals would not be under copyright since he died in 1953. However, if he is considered a veteran of the Great Patriotic War, the originals would still be under copyright. As for the English translations, they would likely still be under copyright, but, according to the Marxists Internet Archive, all Soviet works published prior to 1973 are public domain (the website providing this information is here. Any help? Sincerely yours, Graeculus

P.S. The link does not take you directly where you would need to go. The path is How we function > Bourgeois Legal Information: Copyright Law.

Author:Nezāmi-ye Ganjavī[edit]

On recent change patrol, found this http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Author%3ANez%C4%81mi-ye_Ganjav%C4%AB&diff=1215005&oldid=1214460 seems like you two need to talk. Jeepday (talk) 23:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

To review ...[edit]

You seem to have your head around the request and edit of [2], whereas I would have to start from scratch. Not sure that the edit has been fully comprehended. Thx. -- billinghurst (talk) 03:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: new translations categories[edit]

The new categories are fine. Aren't proposed deletions supposed to be accompanied by notification to the person who created the files? This would have kept me up to date. Thanks for being ambitious enough to expand the scope to all of Wikisource. I have thought of several options for implementing the translations. Those and the EB1911 discussion can be found at Wikisource talk:WikiProject 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Style Manual#English translations of Latin, Greek and French, for what they're worth. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 15:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

East-West dichotomy[edit]

Hi, Prosfilaes. I'm sorry about my clutzy removal of the copyvio tag on this article last week - I edit at Wikipedia and am unfamiliar with Wikisource. I thought you should know that our investigations there show that East-West dichotomy is a self-published web book and not a dissertation. The author and sockpuppets have been persistent in adding references to it in Wikipedia. You may wish to look at our Afd discussion of the author and sockpuppet investigation. He has returned again, now claiming copyright violations. Our latest results here still show the work is only self-published. I would not doubt that the uploader here is probably closely related, if not the author. Anyway, I thought it best to give you the information we have and let you handle this over here as you see fit. Cheers. CactusWriter (talk) 10:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Hm. To be honest, there isn't really any indication one way or the other regarding the book. The "evidence" is actually evidence indicating that the author and/or the book do not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines; I'm still inclined to stand by my comments at the copyright violations discussion page. If new evidence comes to light indicating that it definitely is self-published, obviously I think we should open a deletion discussion. Jude (talk) 23:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


Matto Grosso[edit]

What is Matto Grosso? It doesn't look like a text, so it probably shouldn't be in the main section.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


It is the same place spelled two different ways due to ~whatever~. If one looks it up on Wikipedia it will be found spelled Mato Grosso, meaning "thick woods". It is one of the states of Brazil,located in the western part of the country. It is the third largest state in area in Brazil (aka Brasil) which is huge in size. Teddy Roosevelt wrote about Matto Grosso and I don't think Theodore was too ignorant with his spelling but perhaps he was? —Brother OfficerTalk 00:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

passed[edit]

Hi Prosfilaes. I am perplexed by some of the statements on copyright, though I believe I am familiar with some of the legislation. My interest in this is historical, though I try to keep abreast of the relevant precedents. As M R James passed away some 73 years ago, the basis of my tacit endorsement of the recent uploads, what is the clause you are propounding that contradicts this view? Cygnis insignis (talk) 10:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm still struggling to follow this, but a thought occurred to me; can you confirm that you are aware he is lived, wrote, and published in England. Cygnis insignis (talk) 20:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes. It's not relevant in this case.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I thought you would have noticed this, you may want to take a look, a series of uploads were also discussed on the account's talk page. Cygnis insignis (talk) 03:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you check if a text is in the public domain for me?[edit]

Prosfilaes, can you tell me if the following text is in the public domain? I am really concern it isn't. Here it is. We would like to add this text for the WS:CotW. Please leave me a message on my talk page with what you find. I was told you were quite the expert in these matters. Thanks. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 06:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Kipling stuff[edit]

You are more around this stuff than I

If they are to stay, I am happy to style them. -- billinghurst (talk) 06:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

redirect edit[edit]

What is this the purpose of this edit? Cygnis insignis (talk) 18:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

If a page is created and then turned into a redirect, I can't patrol it; any attempt to get to a page where I could click "Patrol this page" will redirect me to the new page. So I break the redirect, mark it patrolled, and then redo the redirect.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Ta. The documentation was vague the last time I looked. Do I need to mark the contribution as 'patrolled', even after I edit the page, to avoid it being flagged? Cygnis insignis (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Editing a page doesn't automatically patrol the previous edits on it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Author:Malcolm X[edit]

This looks problematic, and I have left a note on the Talk page. We may need to follow up with the editor. -- billinghurst (talk) 21:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Syphilis[edit]

Thanks for your help proofing this wonderful little pamphlet :D Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Thomas Carlyle. 01:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for the group membership thingy. Jafeluv (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

Thank you for deleting Alexandra Uteev Johnson, which I was about to list for "speedy deletion." As you obviously understood, I intended the article to be titled Author:Alexandra Uteev Johnson, but mistakenly left off the "Author" component of the title. Although I don't have time right now to scale back the real "Author" article, I'll try to comply with your request to move the detailed content to Wikipedia as soon as I can. -- LegalBeagle (talk) 00:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Is that your best profile?[edit]

Surely we could have had one of you looking to camera! Or with a book. billinghurst (talk) 21:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

US patents and copyright[edit]

Gday. Would you mind looking at Mother's 3rd Arm and enlightening me whether they are in the public domain or otherwise for being a patent. billinghurst (talk) 13:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what that is. The text of the patent is PD, but that's here (if that doesn't work, you can go here and search for patent number 5823486). There's nothing literary there; it's a mind-numbing jumble of patentese, that doesn't mention twins or any of the other story elements our page has. Of that text, I'd say source unknown, copyright status unknown, and very unlikely to be in scope.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Christmas Message, 1947[edit]

Not sure whether it is an edict of government when head of state speaks. What are your thoughts? -- billinghurst (talk) 16:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's an edict, but I do think it falls under Crown Copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Translation[edit]

I've seen some interesting solutions to displaying parallel texts, let me know if you want some examples. I would be interested in your view on a separate issue that I have been considering, our ongoing translation projects and the potential for copyright infringement. Cygnis insignis (talk) 06:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I responded to your comment, you appear to have bought into an unfounded accusation. I'm unlikely to lose much sleep over what you imagined of me, but it would serve the community well if you defused the situation. Please amend your comments on what another another chose to perceive as a threat. Cygnis insignis (talk) 06:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I replied again. Cygnis insignis (talk) 12:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Seeking your feedback, if time permits[edit]

I have compiled a list of scans of publications of the Scottish Record Society available at archive.org. I have sorted through the files, and dug out their published dates. The pre1923 are okay, though after that they may be problematic, though being indexes they may not be a problem, of course depending on the amount artistic input further in. From your vast knowledge, I would like your thoughts on which of the post1923 we may be able to inhale into Commons for here. Thanks. billinghurst sDrewth 16:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I know of no court case on the copyright of edited texts. These are old enough that the copyright of the original author should be a moot case, so if you think you can get an accurate transcription of what they wrote, free of editorial entanglement, then you could copy it. However, that's not trivial and I can imagine a court case involving intricate discussion of creative expansions of abbreviations and breaking of text in paragraphs and what not. With some of the material, like "Registers of the Burgesses of the Burgh of the Canongate", it may be an index, and the people and dates would be facts in the public domain, but if the occupations were added by the modern editor, I'm pretty sure they would qualify for copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

AN post, update[edit]

Hi Prosfilaes, I hope you are doing well. Please see an update, at Wikisource:Administrator's_noticeboard#User:Wild_Wolf. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfair block[edit]

Dear Prosfilaes – I have become fairly active on the Wikisource:Possible copyright violations ‎ discussion page in recent times. You are probably familiar with some of the issues I have raised there (including what is meant by an “Edict of Government”). On 2 May 2010 I made a number of edits. Most of these edits related to me “tagging, hiding and listing for discussion” works that were labeled as “Edicts of Government” (e.g. South African political speeches, a national anthem and other works). The same day Administrator Billinghurst blocked me. I cannot say precisely why – as he did not give precise reasons – but the general heading he gave was that “Okay, that is too rampant” (i.e. I was being too active in ““tagging, hiding and listing for discussion”).

I have disagreed with Billinghurst on a number of copyright points of late – basically, I would like the same standard to be applied to all works. The same high standard that is – even if that means that a lot of works need to be listed for discussion etc - but his approach is different. I think Billinghurst views me as ‘trouble’. In contrast, I think I have made a worthwhile contribution, prompting interesting discussions, greater clarity and the removal of some works. Indeed, the works I “tagged, hid and listed for discussion” on 2 May 2010 have led to interesting copyright discussions on the copyright violations discussion page. I would like Billinghurst to apologise for blocking me and somehow “expunge” my record.

I would appreciate any contribution you would like to make on my talk page where my block is being discussed. I am sending this message to all persons who have participated on the same copyright violation discussions as me. I do not know how else to generate further participation in the discussion concerning my block save direct messages – as I cannot list this matter (a personal one) on the copyright violations page. The discussion is at User talk:Formosa. Given my treatment, I admit to feeling a bit disheartened about my continuing involvement in the copyright violations project. Thanks. Formosa (talk) 13:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

fix[edit]

Thanks for fixing that header, but I get a routine going and need to wipe the path clear. Btw, that scan for hbty was perfect, showing the full context, I credited you in the upload to commons. Cygnis insignis (talk) 05:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

new message[edit]

[moved from user page]

Sorry to be so thick. Do you mean my work is not acceptable to any Wiki cateory. My page is on Wikisource because I was advised to put it there by one of your fellow editors. I have made it perfectly clear what my work is through my website. If it is unacceptable say so. Terence Kearey

Roubayyat-translation[edit]

"We need more details on the translations. We need to know who did them, why they're in the public domain or what license they're under, and what editions they were translated from."

I did the translation, I mean to publish it, and till I don't find any editor they are in the public domain-and I will never get them out from here (except under the menace of a revolver), I prefer it to be reproduced with my name or pseudonym, but I think I cannot do anything in this sense, so I :let these verses in the public domain.
They are translated from the French edition, called "Les Rubaïyat" and the name of the original translator isn't mentioned in it.

Are your wishes contented? Have a nice day,

--El Translatore (talk) 18:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
All this needs to go on the translation page. Also when was the French translation published? If it wasn't published prior to 1923, then it's probably not in the public domain in the US, and therefore we can't host it or derivative works of it, like translations.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
It is very disagreeable to me, to say that the French edition was first published in 1978. In Europe, if the author died before 1940 all his works belong to the public domain, even the things he wrote or the films and photographs he or she made after 1923. The American rule is far much strict on this point, unfortunately. You must know that I made this translation with the idea to share something with all the members of this big club that is earth; I wished to accomplish the best, and by no means it appeared to my mind to do something against some law or anything of that kind. If this translation, that I have made, with the help of different sources but clearly based on that French edition, keeps being here, what can ever occur? I mean: there is no law against it, is there?
think I believed too much in the idea of the free system, of the greatness of culture; of its expansion, of its quality made to be shared, in a lot of ideas which are limited by laws that protect some people, from the ravaging pillage of a lot of culture and knowledge-hungry men and women.

I hope that thou will have a nice day,

--El Translatore (talk) 17:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

biblioþēce books[edit]

Yes, as indicated in the Biblioþēce page, they are modern translations (which, you guessed, I myself did). I translated them from a Zondervan edition of the Greek New Testament. I do have access to the original Anglo-Saxon versions for some other books, more of which I'll be putting up (see this website); unfortunately some of these don't have an ideal space-saving layout, and sometimes have additional commentaries not with the original, so that'll take me some work to process. Gott wisst (talk) 06:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Robert Elise translations[edit]

Hello, The_Student_back_Home I have written to Elise to get permissions on the translations. he has already given me permission to use many of his works. thanks Mdupont (talk) 08:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Permissions[edit]

To permissions-commons[image: -at-]wikimedia.org I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORK [*http://letersia.zemrashqiptare.net/article/English/ClassicalAuthors/3003/*]. I agree to publish that work under the free license [*PD-Self (all rights released)*]

I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs, as long as they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me. I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. [ *24 December 2010, Robert Elsie* ]

I have undeleted The Student Back Home following conversation in IRC, but I just want to check that this email was actually sent to OTRS, rather than being a proposed email, before I do the rest. There is a bit of formatting to do too, so I'll do them when I have more time (and when I am sure OTRS actually is pending!). Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 23:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
I cannot find such an email in OTRS. Jcb (talk) 09:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Greetings[edit]

I've left you a message here, at Meta. Wōdenhelm (talk) 10:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Your comment about "The poems of Gaius . . . (Cornish)"[edit]

Reference your comment on Scriptorium about the disambiguation name: Good point, I normally pipe it to remove the "(Cornish)" the displayed name, but didn't do that above. Do you think it should be renamed or just consistently piped.--Doug.(talk contribs) 07:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not a big deal, but I'd label it (Francis Cornish) or the like. Piping doesn't change the basic issue for me.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm backend access[edit]

Beeswaxcandle (talkcontribs) has been looking to do some match and splits and having information on the {{Gutenberg}} texts would be really useful. How much can we bother you as we look to work through getting scans to match texts. Or is there a chance that for the Gutenberg texts that we have acquired that we could slowly add provenance details to them? — billinghurst sDrewth 01:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, toss them at me and I tell you when it's too much. I can probably only help on ones that are labeled from Distributed Proofreaders.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Plague Ship[edit]

Hey Prosfilaes,

the image in this work is up for deletion due to a lack of a source. You added the {{PD-US-no renewal}} to the work, so I am thinking that can be applied to the image as well. Is there a source you are aware of that verifies this PD claim? Or, even better, a scan or something? Thank you. - Theornamentalist (talk) 23:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

It's copied from a Project Gutenberg source.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Not that I doubt you (I'm looking here, but where does it specify that it is not renewed? I want to add it to the talk page. - Theornamentalist (talk) 00:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Point of procedure[edit]

FYI - Vote on point of procedure. Green Cardamom (talk) 14:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The Varieties of Religious Experience verifying PG edition?[edit]

Asking on the off chance that you can find out behind the scenes whether the text version at PG (and now here) is the same edition/version that is the attached Index: file. If you can, that would be great. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. The title page and verso for something from 1996 was probably snail-mailed in, and there certainly no scans online that I can check.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Michael D. Higgins speeches[edit]

I really, really, really would have appreciated it if you had not deleted the hours and hours of work I put into those Michael D. Higgins documents I created before giving me a chance to download copies of them. I took the raw transcripts and performed hours of work correcting the inaccurate transcripts against actual verbatim recordings. Then I embedded many links and translations of passages in Irish. It was a considerable amount of very dogged work and I did not keep copies of my work because they were filed on the Wikisource servers — before you summarily deleted it all.

Before I performed my work, I troubled myself to e-mail the Irish government to inquire about the copyright status of the speeches and the official reply was that as they "are a matter of public record there is no copyright attached to them." I will contact the Irish government once again to confirm this now that their word has been challenged by you — without discussion! I could have told you this in advance of your intended action.

I do not see that the three works were listed for discussion or appraisal at Wikisource:Possible copyright violations or that a delay of two weeks was allowed, as mandated, by Wikisource:Possible copyright violations. You really jumped the gun and I am completely screwed without copies of my texts. I cannot begin to express my exasperation and anger at your peremptory action without swearing loudly in your face.

In the meantime, I need copies of my work on those three Higgins speeches for myself. Can you dig the sources out of the deleted files archive or whatever it is so I can have copies of the work I created?

I really am very annoyed that you performed these deletions without the sort of discussion that takes place on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons before deletions occur. It is galling that I do not have copies of the speeches in their corrected and annotated form. I added a lot of work to the raw transcripts. There was nothing to stop you, as a plain courtesy, from leaving a message on my talk page and giving me a little time to respond.

If you cannot personally retrieve copies of the work you deleted, please let me know who to contact for it. O'Dea (talk) 00:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

If I intervened ahead of time, my apologies. I was patrolling, and working my way down the page. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Prosfilaes, the permission for use of the text of these sources has been verified and archived in OTRS. Could you please undelete them so I can indicate such at their talk pages? You can confirm I'm an OTRS volunteer with any other volunteer. Thanks! — madman 20:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed the sources had been userfied; I have placed the PermissionOTRS templates and will let him or her know that the sources can be moved back to mainspace. Thanks! — madman 20:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Index:Alices adventures in Cambridge.djvu has been Validated[edit]

I thought you'd like to know that the above work has now been Validated. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 15:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Stuff I've been adding[edit]

I've been adding minute notes for the meetings of the Board of Alderman and the mayor of my city. So these are the minutes of our legislative sessions, I am not sure if these are within the scope of the project. I was planning on uploading all of our city ordinances as well, which I do believe are within the scope of the project.

Also, is it convention here to post messages back and forth on user pages, such as I am doing here, or is it convention here to keep the thread all on one page. I usually keep it all on one page on en.wikipedia. Thank you Zellfaze (talk) 00:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Automated import of openly licensed scholarly articles[edit]

Hello Prosfilaes,

We are putting together a proposal about the automated import of openly licensed scholarly articles, and since you are an active Wikisourceror, we'd appreciate yourcomments on the Scriptorium. For convenience, I'm copying our proposal here:

The idea of systematically importing openly licensed scholarly articles into Wikisource has popped up from time to time. For instance, it formed the core of WikiProject Academic Papers and is mentioned in the Wikisource vision. However, the Wikiproject relied on human power, never reached its full potential, and eventually became inactive. The vision has yet to materialise.
We plan to bridge the gap through automation. We are a subset of WikiProject Open Access (user:Daniel Mietchen, user:Maximilanklein, user:MattSenate), and we have funding from the Open Society Foundations via Wikimedia Deutschland to demo suitable workflows at Wikimania (see project page).
Specifically, we plan to import Open Access journal articles into Wikisource when they are cited on Wikipedia. The import would be performed by a group of bots intended to make reference handling more interoperable across Wikimedia sites. Their main tasks are:
  • (on Wikipedia) signalling which references are openly licensed, and link them to the full text on Wikisource, the media on Commons and the metadata on Wikidata;
  • (on Commons) importing images and other media associated with the source article;
  • (on Wikisource) importing the full text of the source article and embedding the media in there;
  • (on Wikidata) handling the metadata associated with the source article, and signalling that the full text is on Wikisource and the media on Commons.
These Open Access imports on Wikisource will be linked to and from other Wikimedia sister sites. Our first priority though will be linking from English Wikipedia, focusing on the most cited Open Access papers, and the top-100 medical articles.
In order to move forward with this, we need
  • General community approval
  • Community feedback on workflows and scrutiny on our test imports in specific.
  • Bot permission. For more technical information read our bot spec on Github.

Maximilianklein (talk) 18:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)