User talk:ResidentScholar

From Wikisource

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Title

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

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)