User talk:ResidentScholar

Collaborative French Translation Needed

The Two Mules

Le Grand Meaulnes

French poems, nursery rhymes and riddles

Hello, ResidentScholar, welcome to Wikisource! Thanks for your interest in the project; we hope you'll enjoy the community and your work here.

Please take a glance at our help pages (especially Adding texts and Wikisource's style guide). Most questions and discussions about the community are in the Scriptorium.

The Community Portal lists tasks you can help with if you wish. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

adminship

In case you were not aware, I have nominated you to become an admin. Please go to Wikisource:Administrators#ResidentScholar and either accept or reject. Cheers, John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

No need to write a sermon; Hesperian just said "Thanks John; I accept". Lets get this show on the road!

But if you insist, I will wait with bated breath for a little while longer. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Email and user page

Hello ResidentScholar. Could you set an email address in your preferences, and either create a user page or redirect it to this page? Both are very useful for helping other users contact you. —{admin} Pathoschild 13:29:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Pathoschild, I will work on getting an e-mail address tomorrow, and set up the redirect tonight. ResScholar 07:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, Pathoschild, I got a message saying my e-mail address was confirmed. ResScholar 07:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Post-1923 works

Greetings. I made an important addendum to my answer to your question here. Just wanted to make sure you caught it. All the best, —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 13:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Quadell. I have to say, your explanation of copyright law is among the most lucid I've seen. Good job. ResScholar 19:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

WS Index

Whatever you do, don't look at Wikisource:Pirates ;) Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Sabine Baring-Gould} 06:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Sysop

Hi, ResidentScholar,

You are now a sysop. Would it be possible for you to make a user page and indicate you are a WS admin? Thanks!—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 16:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your seal of approval, Zhaladshar, and I've started the page like you asked. ResScholar 20:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Collaboration project

This weeks collaboration project is G. W. Bush. Please take the time this week to identify and/or transcribe one important work by, or involving, this very prominent person who is relevant to us all. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Gen. Jackson's Negro Speculations, and his Traffic in Human Flesh, Examined and Established by Positive Proof

Feel free to help clean it up, I figure there's about 2.5 hours remaining in solid work on it. If we split the task, it's much easier - as it's not found elsewhere online (other than the raw file on IA) and doesn't even get mentioned anywhere at antique booksites and the like, I'd love to try and get it to Featured Status; but will definitely need help. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:John McCain and Author:Barack Obama} 04:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Edu

Works like the Odyssey are often taught as education, but are not works about education. Same with Laches, it's about two warriors, about courage...not about the role of institutional education. The other works on the page are all works about education - that's all. On the other hand, we have Wikisource:Ancient Greece and similar. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Romain Rolland.} 15:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Treatise on Law and subpages

Gday ResidentScholar. Jude and I are cleaning up headerless pages, and I see that you have been active with Treatise on Law. There are a number of subpages for T on L on the headerless list, and there looks to be a level of activity on the pages. Might you be able to have a look and do something with the pages, or indicate what should be done to those pages and I will see if I can get to them. Thx.-- billinghurst (talk) 01:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:American state papers

Can you explain more about Category:American state papers? I'm still not sure what it's for. —Markles 23:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

American state papers are the constitutional documents of the United States plus the major laws, executive orders and resolutions that determine what the United States, as represented by its government, stands for in relation to the rest of the world and in recognizing and securing the rights of its own citizens. A constitutional document would be like the constitution or the declaration of independence, a law regarding the rights of its citizens might be like the Voting Rights act and an executive order might be like the Emancipation Proclamation; and treaties made by the President and ratified by the Senate are laws declaring how the U.S. stands in relation to the rest of the world.

I also included documents and collections from the individual state governments and conventions that respond to federal acts and policies under the header "U.S. state documents of national interest".

Finally, I included commentary on those documents, like the way the Federalist Papers comments on the constitution or Contemporary Opinion of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions comments on those resolutions.

One document that may not belong there is Carter's presidential direction. But there are so few documents from that era, I put it in there as well.

This page is meant to mirror the Wikisource:United States page, which I discovered does a lot of the same things. But while that page may contain obscure laws that may help to explain American legal principles or the lawful operation of a certain sphere of national life (like business laws), American state papers only is meant to include laws that are historically significant as well. That's why there is separate category from the U.S. laws category

The reason I originated the topic was that certain laws and government acts are more than simply what they do--they also happen to be historical events. So they deserve a history category. But they're not really history books, they're primary sources. So I reckoned they ought to be separated from the history books, as historians report on history, but governments make history so to speak. So in short American state papers is meant to be a sort of archive of official acts as judged significant by historians and political philosophers.

I hope I made things more clear for you, and if you have any suggestions for the category I'd be happy to hear them.

ResScholar (talk) 01:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• Is there an objective standard for inclusion?—Markles 10:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• I couldn't find anything about this on Wikisource, but on Wikipedia I found: w:Categorization#What categories should be created, states, "Do not create categories based on incidental or subjective features" and "Categories appear without annotations, so be aware of the need for a neutral point of view when creating or filling categories. If the composition of a category is likely to be controversial, a list (which can be annotated) may be more appropriate." And w:Overcategorization#Subjective inclusion criterion states, "Adjectives which imply a subjective inclusion criterion should not be used in naming/defining a category. Examples include such subjective words as: famous, notable…"—Markles 10:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The objective standard of inclusion would simply be the acts showing up in history or political philosophy books. Or at least the most renowned ones, or a preponderance of them.

You mentioned "Do not create categories based on incidental or subjective features". The feature "historical" (which is what is implied in the category) may be accidental as far as the legal content in itself goes, but it is essential relative to the author, in this case the U.S. government, representing its essential acts. And I don't think history or philosophy are entirely subjective opinions, but consists of genuine objective knowledge.

You seem to argue that calling certain governmental acts historical will likely be controversial among categorizers. I don't agree because those most likely to be controversial will be the actual significant acts, because partisans won't want to bother with what they think are trivial acts, so in turn the controversy will be about what the significance is, rather than whether they are significant.

You close by mentioning a rule that says subjective words such as "famous" or "notable" shouldn't be used in defining a category. But I disagree that that rule should be pushed so far as to apply to history categories. Next to finding out what happened, discerning between the accidental and essential seems to me the primary role of the historian. That is why the large Wikipedia category w:Category:Political history of the United States contains lists of notable political events in a category defined by their notability. I think the problem that that guideline addresses applies to present-day subjects, where people have living emotions or financial interests, etc. they want to cultivate by adding a superlative, rather than to the dry analysis and conclusions of historians. ResScholar (talk) 05:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Ok, let's get more editors in on this discussion. I've proposed deletion and we can move it to there: Wikisource:Proposed deletions#Category:American state papers.—Markles 18:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Nomenclature for a prior work

Gday Res. Someone has just created The Critique of Judgement/Part 1/Section 1/Book 1/Moment 2 and when looking at it during patrol, I saw that you have been involved with other components. Rather me try and work out what happened where and when, I was wondering whether I can ask you to wrack the brain and look to a solution. Thx -- billinghurst (talk) 05:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Solely consistent naming of the parts. Your fingerprints were there with commentary about naming, and discussions about it. So, rather than me dig, I thought that I could drop (and run )-- billinghurst (talk) 04:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Your note

I almost missed your note. Ms. Warren was probably the most influential woman of the American Revolution. It's an honor to bring her work here (with the help of others). Thanks for noticing. Hats off to you too! - Josette (talk) 03:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

re: Baldwin Text

1. Thank you very much for the helpful notice.
2. Please note that the text document itself had been vandalized after I had added it to {{New texts}}
3. No, I did not select it carelessly, but I will be more careful in the future, thank you.
4. I believe it has been over three months since there was a text related to Scientology at {{New texts}}.

Cirt (talk) 10:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your swift action

Thank you very much for your attention to the rapid fire acts of vandalism to my talk page and to the page I was working on. I guess that the reason that the John Bunyan's Dream Story was added as quickly as it was to the "new text" section of the main page was that I perhaps added it prematurely to the James Baldwin page. It isn't completed, so perhaps one should wait for it to be completed before it is added to the "new text" section or to the James Baldwin page. All in all, thank you for your prompt attention and courtesy.--Drboisclair (talk) 13:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Title

How about setting a good example as an admin to would-be vandals by contributing works that are actually...elevating?

The limerick is furtive and mean.
You must keep her in close quarantine.
Or she sneaks to the slums,
And promptly becomes,
Disorderly, drunk and obscene.

ResScholar (talk) 10:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Adding dirty limericks is my specialty...but very nice, I like that one. Seriously, I've added the works of Osama bin Laden, made PD translations of the Marquis de Sade and added dirty limericks (among hundreds of others); I don't think we should only concern ourselves with puritanical "good" things; when an index like Wikisource:Erotic poetry is just begging to be filled. So to speak. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Galileo Galilei.} 11:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

WS:AN ... Ah!

I was thinking that it was reports from two different sources, with yours being the second and a follow-up. Apologies about that, my brain was obviously being one dimensional. billinghurst (talk) 12:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes I gathered that, the confusion seemed natural to me along the lines you described. There is no need to apologize, but it was kind of you to offer one. ResScholar (talk) 16:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Featured Text

No, sorry, I didn't see any errors. What are you referring to? --Spangineer^wp (háblame) 03:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I found what you're referring to. This work was validated and supported by several users at WS:FTC, but that error apparently slipped through. --Spangineer^wp (háblame) 03:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Public Domain

Hi, the Chapter 49 of the book Autobiography of a Yogi" is in public domain in the USA. Since 2005 it is part of the book Autobiography of a Yogi: The Original 1946 Edition Plus Bonus Material printed and sold by Crystal Clarity. You can check at [[1]]. The synopsis says: "(...) This updated edition contains bonus materials, including a last chapter that Yogananda himself wrote in 1951, five years after the publication of the first edition. It is the only version of this chapter available without posthumous changes." Best regards, --Tat Sat (talk) 22:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Just found Invitation to the Pain of Learning - nice work. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:David Livingstone.} 06:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

So you finally admit I added something you like to Wikisource:Education! That must have taken a lot of pride-swallowing on your part. Just kidding. Glad you like it. ResScholar (talk) 06:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

An Autobiography or The Story of my Experiments with Truth

Hello, I noticed that you deleted some pages of this book. Are you aware than BD2412, who is a lawyer, has added his opinion? I think it brings a new light. Finally if there is a consensus to delete the text, it would be better to delete all pages, not only a few. Reagrds, Yann (talk) 12:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yann, I'm glad you mentioned BD2412's opinion—I missed seeing it when I took a final look at the section before starting to delete. However the evidence he presents further suggests to me that deletion is the appropriate action for this work. I found the consequences of that action more regretable as I started to delete it last night when I found the numerous wikilinks that had been added. But as I pointed out, the Navajivan Trust had found a U.S. publishing partner, and today, as BD2412 found, interested readers can preview substantial portions of the work over the internet, attracting buyers to pay Gandhi's trust the royalties U.S. copyright law currently affords it.

As for not deleting it wholesale, I started to last night, but found the work too cumbersome to completely finish deleting in one night. I think I will give BD2412 a few days in case he wishes to respond and then complete the deletion if he doesn't. ResScholar (talk) 05:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, fine. I wish this case to be settled, one way or another. Yann (talk) 09:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Author's names and redirect

Hi ResScholar, you undertook -> Author:Glenn Lee Beck moved to Author:Glenn Beck over redirect (better known name of this commentator). It would seem that for the past while that we have been doing this the other, fully expanding names where possible, and doing redirects where there is a shortened version. While I would see that we are less likely to have multiple authors of that name, it makes things harder in the longer term with regards to disambiguation if there is ever the need. I was wondering whether you would consider reversing your decision. Or is there something that I am not understanding? Thx. -- billinghurst (talk) 10:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

What about Author:Ronald Reagan? ResScholar (talk) 03:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Please don't pick the pages that may be the exception, or have a level that they may be names specific in history. Everywhere we look there are small historical exceptions, and given our chance we wouldn't do them again. BTW Ronald Reagan was a well-known person worldwide, Mr. Beck is not so.

I was trying to address with regard to a newly created author page, and I am not here to pick fights, accuse wrongdoing or anything like that. I am here with a request that you reconsider the move, and with the view of how we should be doing things. billinghurst (talk) 03:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I was being facetiously recalcitrant because I had never noticed this supposed rule before and I wanted to express my dubiousness. This three name labeling strikes me as bureaucratic and is not needed to accomodate Wikipedia's disambiguation requirements, for example. The principle I myself was employing was "accepting what Wikipedia or Wikiquote had already decided, which generally reflects common usage."

When I started working on Wikisource I had the same enthusiasm to disambiguate. In 2004 I contributed Oedipus the King and wanted to call it Oedipus the King (Plumptre) because I realized there must be many translations. Pathoschild or Zhahaldazar or some other of the old-timers reeled me back off of that limb, saying, we will rename it if Wikisource grows to include those other translations. You're going to have to decide for yourself if you want the center of attention of the title or the authorname to be the disambiguation or the well-known name.

As for changing it back, in case you hadn't noticed, Cirt has drawn strength from your first request and already adopted on behalf of Wikisource your principles, and changed it back himself. Since everything Cirt has added to Author:Glenn Lee Beck is about Glenn Beck (all of Beck's work being under copyright), I think Cirt has other motives than collecting works by this author. I think this is an attempt to make a subject page for a specific individual, and its maybe not enough for him to do that, maybe he wants to marginalize him as well through the bibliographical organization employed, demoting him to "one Glenn Beck among many," rather than "the famous Glenn Beck"; in this case the "medium [of reference]" being the "message".

I don't care enough about the issue to risk my reputation for being tolerant of other's organizational usages to begin an edit dispute on the subject. But thank you for bringing up the subject in a principled way, so I could make a beginning of articulating my opposing principles to Cirt's practices in case these kinds of usages become part of a larger pattern of abuse. ResScholar (talk) 05:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment: If you could suggest any other free-use documents relating to Author:Glenn Lee Beck, either by the individual himself or others, I would be happy to add them to this project. So far, I have not come across any writings by this individual himself, that are under an appropriate license for inclusion on this project. Cirt (talk) 06:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Author:Glenn Lee Beck

Per convention, we use full names with middle names, when known, on this project. Cirt (talk) 11:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice tidy up

Thanks for the stuff at Requested texts, it looks a whole lot better. I had looked at it previously, shuddered and moved away with eyes averted. :-) billinghurst sDrewth 22:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing. Some of those works are so obscure I wonder if we'll ever get around to doing them. ResScholar (talk) 10:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

thx for responding to zap request. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 17:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

flatland

A terrific work (excuse peeking with pop-ups on RC); I recommended this book to someone just the other day, I never thought to check if we had it. I'm uploading a scan, if only to allow changes to be easily verifiable. Regards, Cygnis insignis (talk) 07:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok

So what exactly is Wikisource?

Page:Newton's Principia (1846).djvu/90

What exactly are you trying to do with this page? Where is the paragraph getting messed up (page or main namespace)? It'd be nice if we could solve this with a call to another page rather than putting text on the wrong page. —Spangineer^wp (háblame) 12:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes... interesting. Let me give a shot. —Spangineer^wp (háblame) 12:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. ResScholar (talk) 12:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It isn't pretty, but defining sections and calling them individually makes it display properly in both namespaces. I'm hesitant to do this throughout the work until we confirm there's no better way to do it. —Spangineer^wp (háblame) 12:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It's over my head; I'm just now learning about this. I'm impressed you were able to get it to work at all. I'll lay low and not edit these picture problems till you guys decide the best fix. Thank you again. ResScholar (talk) 12:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Just a lucky guess on my part; the code I used was copied from someone who figured out before I did how to handle multi-page references, and it happens to solve this problem as well. I've started discussion of this at WS:S##Weird_line_break_in_paragraphs_with_images. —Spangineer^wp (háblame) 12:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

You just asked me a question about my post. Yes i posted Poetry Potter few minutes a go and I am trying to edit it. It was published under the list of poetry groups and movements, here is the link to the main page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_poetry_groups_and_movements, please let me know what you think afterward.

If you read carefully, you will realize that Poetry Potter is no Advertisement. I will never post an advert on this platform because I know what the implication is. I will like to hear from you.

Well, I can see that you have edited my post (Poetry Potter) to suit Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Thanks for the good job.

Reply

I recused [2]. I posted as you requested, at Wikisource:Possible_copyright_violations#Author:_Prem_Rawat. Thank you for being on top of this situation. Yours, -- Cirt (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Want a better Commons and local name?

Do you want me to rename Index:Mythofguiltynati00nockrich.djvu‎‎ to something nicer? Happy to do so, and can do it in about 15 minutes time. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Mate, your choice, I usually go from the title page, as they link to the other from Commons. I will do as you ask, it was an offer which is yours to accept, accept and direct, or reject. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure you can move here, though as you need to align with the filename at Commons (to use <pagelist> nicely), it needs to be done there too. I was offering to do both, however, if Commons alone is your wish, that is okay. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Done Index:The Myth of a Guilty Nation.djvu. One of the reasons that I pursued Commons adminship was so that we could more easily do descriptive naming of files here and at Commons. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Two thoughts, either that something is gawped with your javascript bitsy whatsy, or your not seeing your footer properly, and this bit toggles header/footer. I had seen somethin in an earlier version of ProofreadPage, however, Thomas quickly amended those bits and I don't see the broswer get confused anymore. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

We can still use {{smaller}} where the <div> doesn't wrap across pages, I just use the div wrapper so I can <noinclude> and therefore not get ugly formatting. Of course, what you are doing is fully correct. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Billinghurst, for the tip, and your generosity in donating your proofreading skills! ResScholar (talk) 08:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Unfair block

Dear ResidentScholar – 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) 13:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

A Working Library on Islam

Would you mind having a look at A Working Library on Islam and working out what we should do with it. Unsourced, unlicensed, unauthored. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

BEEP BEEP!

Awarded in recognition of a good captcha. Thanks! — billinghurst sDrewth 09:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved Talk:Res Gestae (Bushnell)?

The tag is still there. I thought that we had this one put to bed. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

User name

Hi ResScholar: I saw your question on WS:ADMIN, and the simple answer is that I'm an engineer by profession and I speak Spanish... and six and a half years ago, when I started on Wikipedia, it seemed like a good nickname. =) —Spangineer (háblame) 15:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I sort of deduced it was something like that. But what I was referring to was that someone (apparently Billinghurst) spelled your name with three 'e's (Spangineeer) in the header of your section title at WS:ADMIN. I could have fixed it myself, but I wanted to have a little fun with those who voted (or started the header) but didn't notice the typo. Good talking to you again, I was ill lately and haven't been to contribute. ResScholar (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep, though with the appropriate contributions, maybe I should have spelt it Spanginerrr, and gone for the three Rs which would seem thematically appropriate. Billinghurst (talk) 22:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The Romance of Isabel, Lady Burton

The Romance of Isabel, Lady Burton/Book 1/Chapter 10, Page 193-195 seem to have trouble with the numbering/paragraphs, any chance you could help? TheSkullOfRFBurton (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you able to understand simple cases of someone else's text coding and apply it to your own work? If so you can either copy an example I found you might be able to follow, or use the example to ask a specific question on the Scriptorium if there is a template on Wikisource you can use to span the indented paragraphs over two pages.

That's fine if you want to work on the spanning, but you should know, especially in simple cases like these, the page text doesn't have to exactly match what appears on the image, and you could easily get away with keeping the whole text in each numbered item together on either the beginning page or the ending page. ResScholar (talk) 22:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Mighbt as well try the example, have it handy? TheSkullOfRFBurton (talk) 22:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:hws and Template:hwe are two templates that show two different parts of a hyphenated word on the page: namespace, but the word without a hyphen in the main namespace. It contains the coding that detects where the text is, and it works like hws|respons|responsible and hwe|ible|responsible. You could adapt this to put the whole first part of the paragraph as the first parameter, and the whole paragraph as the second parameter, and similarly with the last part. There may be a more elegant way to do this with noincludes or something, but I don't know it and my browser doesn't support the footers and headers it would probably take even if I learned. Good luck. ResScholar (talk) 23:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

cambridge history

It would be wonderful if you could switch it to djvu. Could you possibly then make sure the transclusion goes through? - Tannertsf 10:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

My talk page

Please reply there. You can delete this. -- Thekohser (talk) 13:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Presidendial calendars — new WS:NARA project?

ResidentScholar, I want to thank you for signing up to help with WS:NARA. I recently talked with a staff member here in the Office of Presidential Libraries, and project he was interested in doing was the daily calendars of the presidents. Right now, these are scattered across the websites of each of the presidential libraries, in different formats and only sometimes with a text transcription or text layer on the PDF. I think these would be excellent additions to Wikisource. One of the best organized of these is the Nixon calendar (links to the PDFs here). I have uploaded the first month at File:Presidential Daily Diary, compiled 01-1969.pdf, and all the others can use that exact same format, just changing the title to represent the month. Does this sound like a project you would be interested in working on? Dominic (talk) 18:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Treatise on Human Acts (part 1)

Good morning! Just curious as to what source you are using for comparison/transcription purposes for the above text. The IA edition mentioned on the Discussion page does not compare with the Mainspace text as rendered. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The proofread Project Gutenberg version. There was a protracted discussion of this between Cygnis Insignis and myself on his Discussion page. This project predates the Internet Archive's text archives by several years, and I think I can reasonably expect some grandfathering. ResScholar (talk) 09:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

OK! I read through the discussion between you and Cygnis Insignis, and tried best I could to comprehend it as I read. I can see why you probably prefer not to re-hash the question all over again with me! All I can say—as a layman (but one who cares enough to want to know that the copy I am reading is reliable)—is that it was unclear to me which source(s) your version derived from (given the choices linked to on the Discussion page for the project)—even still... but I am dense :) You might place a link to the discussion between you and Cygnis on the Talk page as well for other Users to follow(?)... Perhaps clearly state to the reader (in the notes section of the header, perhaps) a brief summary of your intent/technique for the project as you outlined on Cygnis' Talk page with direct links to any scans you may have used(?)... Thanks for pointing me to the conversation! Sincerely, Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Curlyquotes

Quick question: Are 'curlyquotes' different from the quotation mark button on my keyboard? Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

You've probably noticed that that key and the apostrophe key don't match the quotation marks you see in books and such. You can type them by selecting “Ligatures and symbols” in the selection box at the bottom of your editing page that normally just says “Select”. ResScholar (talk) 14:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. So what happens with all the keyboard-generated quotation marks on WS pages? Will a bot eventually come along and fix them all? Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea. I'm in no hurry to champion a task that difficult. Once someone offered in the Scriptorium to fix all the double en-dashes with em-dashes. There were so many exceptions that people mentioned to be dealt with that they changed their mind and gave up. ResScholar (talk) 14:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Euripides and Aristophanes

I apologize for potentially putting up copyright violating material. I assumed that, because they were translated before 1923, they were public domain; I will look for possible replacements without the copyright issues, and I'll notify you here once I have them up.

I hope there's not a similar problem with The Authoress of the Odyssey; the text is from 1897 and the edition from 1922. SVeach94 (talk) 18:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, and no, the license template you picked for the work matches the situation described at Sacred Texts so there's no problem. ResScholar (talk) 18:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The Knights

After a brief search, I found this recent translation of it. Obviously this has a copyright; however, the author gives explicit permission for anyone to use it provided he is acknowledged as the author. Is this acceptable, or should I look for a public domain version? SVeach94 (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but no, the author has restricted the use of his work from commercial use. Works at Wikisource must be free to be used even commercially. And the copyright discussion about this work I linked to does contain a link to a public domain version at Internet Archive by the same anonymous translator, if you are not looking to "start from scratch". ResScholar (talk) 18:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I managed to find a copy of The Eleven Comedies that you mentioned on the discussion page. Since it's on Gutenberg, I assume it's public domain, right? SVeach94 (talk) 19:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes that one looks fine. ResScholar (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I've found suitable alternatives to all of the objectionable plays, including Euripides; you can delete them whenever you feel like it. SVeach94 (talk) 04:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Euripides Vol 2

Hi, I'm working through Special:LonelyPages and see that there's 45 pages in the Page ns for the above work that you replaced the Index for on 1 January. e.g. Page:The Plays of Euripides Vol. 2- Edward P. Coleridge (1907).djvu/101. Do we still need these? Is there stuff on them that can be copied/moved across to the replacement version? Cheers, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm a "manual worker", so no magic bots. I wish MassDelete would work for this sort of thing. I'm happy to do the deletions, I just wanted to make sure that you didn't need the contents before they disappeared. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. We other folks at Wikisource are lucky to have such a fast worker as you on the team. ResScholar (talk) 03:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Obits and years

The advantage of the obits being categorised in YYYY works was that they were eminently findable and able to be manipulated through <DPL>, through the years, and now they aren't

<DynamicPageList>
category = Obituaries
category = 1922 works
</DynamicPageList>

• New York Times/Dr. Wilbur F. Crafts Crusader, Dies at 73
• The Times/1922/Obituary/Ernest Marsh Lloyd
• Journal of the Polynesian Society/W. H. R. Rivers obituary

<DynamicPageList>
category = Obituaries
category = 1923 works
</DynamicPageList>

• The Times/1923/Obituary/William Thorburn
• British Medical Journal/1923/The Late Sir William Thorburn
• The Times/1923/Obituary/Samuel Waddington
• The Times/1923/Obituary/Charles Platts
• The Times/1923/Obituary/John Octavius Johnston

— billinghurst sDrewth 12:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Aristotle

I have checked the copyrights on the works you plan to nominate for deletion please explain your reasoning Harryjamespotter1980 (talk)

I again looked at the copyrights law you talking about. It states the beyond any work published before 1923, in 1996 they had to change their copyright status on foreign works such as ones published in the U.K. as we stated all of these works are. The law states that if the works were first published in a foreign country (as these were) then to determine U.S copyright on the material you have to look to that country's specific copyright laws. The U.K. copyright expires 50 years after the author's death.Meaning all of these works are out of copyright as recent as 1990. Now for U.S. copyright from 1996 says that if the works was out of copyright or in the public domain in their respect country before Jan. 1, 1996 then the work was in the public domain, making all of these works public domainHarryjamespotter1980 (talk) 08:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I looked at your links I understand the copyright extension would make all of these works out of copyright as late as 2009 in the U.K. would that not make them out of copyright in the U.S., but I do not understand what part of the This resource page you are referring.Harryjamespotter1980 (talk)

Wikisource uses a server in the state of Florida in the U.S. There aren't servers spread across the world, as far as I know.

Search for all or a good part of this phrase for the line of the document that states the applicable copyright term is 95 years: "Solely published abroad, without compliance with US formalities or republication in the US, and not in the public domain in its home country as of 1 January 1996". ResScholar (talk) 09:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

In response to first paragraph I didn't mean that wiki has servers all around the world I meant because the underlying U.S. copyright is based on the copyright of the original country which expired in 2009 wouldn't it also be expired here in the U.S.

In response to the second paragraph I searched that link, that law applies only to U.S. foreign nationalists or U.S. citizens living abroad. Which does not apply for these works.

The restored U.S. copyrights (called URAA) are based in part on the copyright status of the work in the nation where it comes from, but once the copyright status is established beginning in 1996, the two copyright terms in the two countries are independent of each other, according to the chart.

To me foreign nationals would mean "members of foreign nations living outside the U.S. instead of inside the U.S. as resident aliens". And so I think "foreign nationals or U.S. citizens living abroad" simply means "anyone not living in the United States" when they first published their work. ResScholar (talk) 10:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand, but would the copyright status change if the works was to go out of copyright in its original country I don't see were on that chart I talks about the copyright status be completely independent of each other.

I don't think it matters if it goes out of copyright. I'm not saying the U.S. copyright status is completely independent of the U.K. one, but independent in the sense I mentioned (that is, it is independent once the Jan 1, 1996 status is determined). Because otherwise the chart entry of the resource from Cornell would have said the copyright expires either in 95 years after origination or 70 years after the lifetime of the writer. ResScholar (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Are there non copyright versions of all these works that you want to delete? Harryjamespotter1980 (talk)