User talk:Cirt/Archive 1

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Contributions
Contributions

Welcome[edit]

Collaboration of the Week

The current community collaboration is collecting works related to
the Eminent Women Series.

Last collaboration: Slavery in the United States (1837)

'Song of the day' is no longer an active project


The current Proofread of the Month is

The Tower  (1928)
by William Butler Yeats.

Last month completed: Memoirs of the Lady Hester Stanhope
The next scheduled collaboration will begin in May.

Welcome to Wikisource!
Now that you're here, you're probably wondering...

Welcome! Thank you for joining Wikisource; we'd love for you to stick around and get more involved. We are a small community of approximately a hundred key people, with infinite help from random passersby. You might be wondering which of the two classes we consider you...well, I guess that's going to be up to you.

You'll find we are own our little corner of the Wikimedia Foundation, free from all the drama, arguments and policy violations you may be used to seeing elsewhere. In fact, since we largely just republish exactly what others before us have already written, there is very little concern about "neutrality" for example. After all, if the text of a speech by Adolf Hitler is inflammatory and biased...wasn't that its purpose?

If you're looking for a specific topic, you'll likely find it by navigating through Wikisource:Works, whether it's Portal:Islam or Portal:Mermaids. For overarching categories, you might be better looking at something like Category:Poems or Category:Novels. Of course, if you know the author's name, that's easiest of all, just plug in "Author:Rudyard Kipling" and you'll see everything he ever wrote (or was written about him!).

Chances are, you have a favourite subject we don't cover very well...here's how to change that!

So, your favourite author or subject isn't very well represented on the project? Well as long as you make sure the texts fit the standards of Public Domain, you can add them yourself! (Like all rules, those are basic guidelines, if you want to play with exceptions to the rule, just ask any of the administrators for help)

If the text doesn't already exist, just enter its name below and it will pre-load an editing page for you to set to work! Be sure to add {{no header}} to the top of the page, and then include categories so people can find it.


If you can't think of any particular corners to improve on Wikisource, how about taking a look at Portal:Religious texts, Portal:Wars or Portal:Texts by Country for some ideas? Don't forget to list your contributions on those pages as well so others will find and read them in the future!

Reading when you want, how you want
Places to go, people to meet

Well, if you've clicked all the way to this tab, you might as well plan on spending a few more hours acquainting yourself with our massive library. It's not perfect, sometimes there's an occasional misspelling or you'll see a text sorted incorrectly. So help us out, let us know, or fix it yourself!

If you're bored and just wanting to grab a mop and bucket, then there are plenty of corners that need tidying. Works that need to be split into chapters, Works that need their licensing clarified, Works that need machine-read words corrected and Works that need page-numbers removed would all be a good place to start.

Help us out
—unsigned comment by Jayvdb (talk) .
Thank you! Cirt (talk) 07:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Byron v. Rajneesh Foundation International[edit]

We generally leave contributors to do as their please, but I have sprinkled your first contribution with Annotations and other suggested improvements. Feel free to undo any you dont like; I'll leave it with you. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CoS[edit]

While court cases are welcomed, please note that concerns have been raised about anti-Scientology PC/A additions to Wikisource. We strive to be a free, public library - not a repository of rants and personal agendas by bloggers looking to increase their audience. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: e. e. cummings‎. 18:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is best discussed at WS:DEL. Cirt (talk) 20:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New texts[edit]

Please try to avoid stacking the {{New texts}} template; currently you have put the last five documents on it, three American federal bills/leg, and two anti-Scientology texts. We want to offer new readers a wide variety of texts from which to read. Please continue to add texts, but do not add quite so many texts as you have been -- show a little restraint and try to put up interesting/challenging works. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: e. e. cummings‎. 21:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would encourage others to add to that template as well. Cirt (talk) 21:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not "Recent Changes", it is not to list every single text you add -- it is usually used to celebrate the completion of a difficult project, for specific holidays, or showcasing new/unique texts. Not every US federal bill or anti-scientology bill a single person can find and try to put on the front page. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: e. e. cummings‎. 21:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please show me a policy or page that discusses this. Cirt (talk) 21:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is common sense, that one user cannot monopolise the front page of the project to highlight their own personal opinions. Works typically stay on the template about a week before being replaced...yet you've removed five in the last day, to replace them with your own work. This is not fair to other contributors whose work is being shunted aside to showcase your rhetoric and every little addition you make about renaming a post office. This is a gentle warning to be more considerate in the future, please do continue to add texts slowly to the template...if five of the eight works are all written by you in the last day, perhaps you should re-think adding more and more and stacking the front page with your own work. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: e. e. cummings‎. 21:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So far, this seems like your own notions about how that particular template should work. (It does say new texts...) I see no policy page about how that template should operate. You have been singling me out lately and commenting on me personally as opposed to a discussion about policy and particular pages, I think perhaps it is best for us to take a break from each other. There are plenty of other admins around. Hopefully in the future we can discuss the individual conflicts/pages/deletion discussions themselves, as opposed to a discussion focused on an individual contributor. Cirt (talk) 21:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a small community, we operate on a series of largely uncodified agreed-upon standards, such as "no one user can monopolise the front page of the library to spread their own views". There is no official policy against it, because WS has very few "official policies" because common sense is typically enough. I am going out of my way to try and politely explain this to you, and would appreciate if you would listen and absorb, instead of being a snarky 15-year old kid going "Oh yeah, sez who?!". I'm not your mother, I don't give a   whether or not you sass me, but don't disrupt the project, and learn to take criticism. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: e. e. cummings‎. 21:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully request that you redact this rude and inappropriate comment from my talk page. Cirt (talk) 21:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New texts redux[edit]

You might have seen, I left a note for Sherurcij about his handling of the new texts business. The flip side is that the meat of what he was telling you was all good. We dont have a policy for that template, and Sherurcij is rightly concerned about it being used to promote a particular message on our front page. POV-laden texts that are lost in our collection are not much of a concern, however we would not want Protocols of Zion on the front page, or anything else that is controversial, unless it is truly worthy of the front page from a library science point of view, either technical or for its value as a text. Also, there are BLP issues to think about.

The new texts template is usually updated when we have something unique to add to it; we dont add every new text, and texts usually stay on there for up to a week, or longer, until we have better texts to put on it. I've suggested that we improve the way we manage that part of the front page, maybe adding a policy. We'll see. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You make some good points, and I appreciate very much the polite and kind manner in which you communicate them to me, thank you for that. The things you say are logical, but there should be a page somewhere that describes this process, so it is not done on such an ad-hoc basis in the future. Cirt (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self - categories[edit]

Category:EB1911:Buildings[edit]

It can be deleted. I decided to call it Category:EB1911:Architecture:Buildings instead. —unsigned comment by Laverock (talk) .

Ah okay thank you. Cirt (talk) 19:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CoS[edit]

Created Wikisource:Scientology, please display some form of NPOV and upload works both critical and explanatory/positive towards the faith. But I know it's an interest of yours, so please do help fill up the index. Just be sure to pay attention to copyright and notability standards. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Nostradamus‎. 21:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We do not have notability standards, and the community is quite clear they do not want notability standards, but we are moving towards needing a BLP standard. See also this comment. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If we're going to argue, I'd say "unless they have some historical value " pretty much supports the fact texts much be notable. The fact I create a blog and release it into the public domain, for example, is not notable. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Nostradamus‎. 01:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS ticket link requested[edit]

I recently received an email about the copyright permission for Billy Bragg's modern lyrics of The Internationale. After forwarding it (with content posted at Wikilivres:Talk:The_Internationale_(Bragg)) to Commons OTRS, Mike Ingram did not log Ticket#2008110810002939 anywhere while considering the video concerned unfit on Commons and English Wikipedia capable of fair use claim, so I would like to ask if you would please make a link for easier reference at any of the following:

I would like to see a link to the OTRS ticket number as no administrators of Canadian Wikilivres have OTRS access. My received copyright permission has commercial uses limited in certain ways, thus not fully GFDL-compatible, so I posted the lyrics on Wikilivres where works with non-commercial and/or non-derivative copyright permissions are accepted. Thanks.--Jusjih (talk) 04:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will inquire into this further. Cirt (talk) 05:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not sure I understand why you need a link to the ticket added anywhere. Furthermore, you can link to it ([1]) yourself if you want. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 15:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because I have no OTRS access and no one else has told me how to link and which number, different from that OTRS ticket number in my email, I would like to ask how. Thank you both very much.--Jusjih (talk) 20:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will defer to Mike.lifeguard (talk • contribs) on this. Cirt (talk) 01:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this matter resolved? Cirt (talk) 10:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's done after I know how to link from Canadian Wikilivres for easier reference.--Jusjih (talk) 03:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay great. :) Cirt (talk) 03:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks[edit]

thanks for the welcome Shooke (talk) 23:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please show restraint[edit]

You are re-engaging old habits of always trying to have an anti-Scientology text on the front page to advance a personal agenda, this is not constructive editing - the template is meant to showcase a wide variety of texts, not be a soapbox for personal opinion. You can't add new anti-Scientology links within hours of your last anti-Scientology text being removed to make way for new texts. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Romain Rolland. 16:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a decision of a Judge in United States Federal Court. The decision is actually against the defendant, it is not a "anti-Scientology text". You are using this as an attempt to make your own characterizations which are inappropriate and incorrect. And, you are using the Edit Summary space inappropriately [2] to attack another editor and use inappropriate language. Cirt (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did not "attack" anybody in it, I explained why it was being undone and linked to the further discussion. On Wikinews, as well as here, you have repeatedly tried to get what would commonly be dubbed "anti-Scientology texts" "Scientology on trial" and "Scientology is the downfall of the United States" types of texts and moved to have them on the front page. [Template_talk:New_texts#Adding_new_texts Last November] we had the same issue when you removed five works from "New texts" to add your own texts, and a mini-revert-war brewed, and the same was true on your talk page. The fact the judge did not rule against the CoS does not make it any less an "anti-Scientology" text -- just like if I spent the next two years uploading texts accusing your grandfather of treason...even if he was found not guilty. Wikisource should have the texts, and I'm glad to see you add so many -- but they cannot monopolise the front page with them. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Romain Rolland. 17:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A Wikisource administrator called one of your prior personal attacks against me: tenuous allegations added against one of the Wikinews arbitration committee members, noting that you had mistakenly highlighted Wikinews articles where I was not even the main contributor. The vitriol was tenuous and rude then, and it is now as well. Cirt (talk) 17:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category talk:Mormonism[edit]

I would like to invite you to a discussion at Category talk:Mormonism. -- 208.81.184.4 22:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self - templates[edit]

Cirt (talk) 05:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Main Page[edit]

Hi, could we talk at

Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. :) Cirt (talk) 08:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baldwin Text[edit]

Cirt, you added a text, the Author:James Baldwin text, to the New Texts template. It was a text that was unfinished. I am removing it. You might happen to learn as well that the text was vandalized. Allow me to assure you the two actions are unrelated (unless the vandal was protesting a breach of obscure Wikisource protocol by pasting up a picture of a naked body 7 times). ResScholar (talk) 08:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I hope you didn't just select it carelessly, to mask an excessive use of anti-Scientology articles in the New Texts section, or User:Sherurcij might find out and get mad. —unsigned comment by ResidentScholar (talk) .

No license tag?[edit]

I thought this tag was for those authors whose coypright status was uncertain, and I was hoping that other users would replace it with the appropriate tag once the status was determined. Wild Wolf (talk) 14:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gadget-purgetab[edit]

Hi Cirt, I brought the updated version of purgetab over to WS from WP. Is there any means to modify it to work in the File: environment ?(eg.File:Dictionary of National Biography volume 60.djvu) With our DjVu files, once they have been modified at Commons, or when we have an upgrade to ProofreadPage there can be a requirement to purge the File:... to get it to reset its links, and redo the underlying text layers. It would be good if we could make it easier. Thanks. -- billinghurst (talk) 15:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well there is also the purge option in the clock thingy at the upper right hand corner... Cirt (talk) 16:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch! Hadn't noticed, and we don't make it particularly obvious. I will fiddle there then. Thx. -- billinghurst (talk) 02:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, no worries. Cirt (talk) 12:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reworked with obvious title. -- billinghurst (talk) 12:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. :) Cirt (talk) 13:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Portals[edit]

Special:PrefixIndex/Portal: = something to look into. :P Cirt (talk) 04:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guideline[edit]

Interesting idea - Creative Commons licensed journals[edit]

See w:Category:Creative Commons licensed journals

Cirt (talk) 10:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xenophon[edit]

G'day,

How come you deleted the Xenophon speech?

Hesperian 03:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to resolve its status, give me a moment. Cirt (talk) 03:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Query[edit]

Hi, sorry I don't have the time do more now. But why don't you just copy and paste what I did to the other articles. (Ps, when they are done, I think it is really important that they get protected.) --The Illusional Ministry (talk) 14:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I will look into it. Cirt (talk) 02:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:USCongRec[edit]

Cirt (talk)

Blocking[edit]

Before blocking an editor for an issue as nebulous as disruption, it is really important an administrator first communicates the problem they see to the editor with a clear warning. It seems to me that you overlooked this in regards to Wild Wolf, but hope you can understand how this needs to be our best practice when issuing blocks. Please be sure to give clears warnings in the future.--BirgitteSB 00:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I fully agree with you and you are correct about that. Cirt (talk) 00:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are brave statements[edit]

Takes courage and a good level of self-reflection to come out and make those statements, and I congratulate you for being able to do it. FWIW, I have plenty of practice at trying to implement a just culture (leading authors ... Sidney Dekker, Andrew Hopkins, James Reason) so in that regard, I have an unfair advantage, and I am not afraid to use it! smiley — billinghurst sDrewth 02:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Cirt (talk) 02:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Little request[edit]

As we monitor Template:New texts in IRC, and many of us have it in our Watchlist, I was wondering whether you would consider (for our selfish interests) adding the name of the text being added to the edit summary, rather than solely +1,-1. Even if we just have +Name of work, -1 that would be most helpful. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. :) Cirt (talk) 14:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sklar v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue[edit]

Created the page (using the name given at the openjurist page for this case) and did some preliminary formatting. A big chunk of text hasn't been imported yet. I also made the template {{Federal reporter}}, which I think you will find useful for some of these documents. Holler if you need anything! Inductiveload—talk/contribs 00:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of recusal requested.[edit]

A long time ago you disputed with User:Jossi apparently under a different user name about some court cases and other matters, and recently I have brought up some of his contributions at Possible Copyright Violations. Should he ever return, the foundation for which he chose to act as an agent would have to go through OTRS-permissions to contribute texts to Wikisource.

Since you joined the OTRS team apparently before revealing your prior disputes with Jossi by acknowledging the name you previously used, I think it would be a good idea if you were to state in advance at Possible Copyright Violations that you would recuse yourself from involvement in archiving whatever permissions this individual chooses to facilitate, including this foundation.

There is an open section at WS:COPYVIO for you at section "Author:Prem Rawat" for you to do just that. I would appreciate your rapid compliance in this matter that could otherwise bring embarrassment to Wikisource. ResScholar (talk) 05:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. And recused [3]. -- Cirt (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is In Recognition of Dr. James Meier of the San Mateo Medical Center not copyvio?[edit]

In your rendition of the work you state that it is the work of a representative of the Californian legislative, and to me that would seem to be a state legislature, not a federal, and there not covered by {{PD-USGov}} nor would it be considered {{PD-GovEdict}} as it is not particularly an edict. To me the work looks copyvio. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is work is published by the Federal government through GPO access. Cygnis insignis (talk) 12:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a work of a California legislature member. It is a work of a member of the United States Congress, published in the Congressional Record. -- Cirt (talk) 17:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
K. Thanks. I misread it. — billinghurst sDrewth 17:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, -- Cirt (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad that cv query[edit]

Glad that cv query was sorted out. Re elsewhere, in all honesty I may be slightly lacking in objectivity here. I am well versed in the horrors of the twentieth century, yet I always found libraries to be excellent places to also focus on humanities achievements, so sorry for being prickly about these things. regards, Cygnis insignis (talk) 19:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment on new texts[edit]

Once again mate, I felt the need to make a pretty firm complaint. This largely relates to a culture here, please don't think I am having a go at you. The idea is a reasonable one, but it resembles the solutions that others have provided elsewhere - a complex solution when a simple one will do. I strongly believe this is one of the things that makes it difficult for people to contribute to wikisource, sorry that I had to blow off steam about that. Cygnis insignis (talk) 23:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Project - National Chemistry Week[edit]

-- Cirt (talk) 16:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why blocking sockpuppets for people not editing here?[edit]

Have we changed some procedure or have a new process in place? Wikisource:Sockpuppet We haven't normally sought out unused user accounts and blocked them when they have not been editing at our site. I would have thought that would be something that could be managed by other means, or be blocked globally by stewards if it was problematic. Have I missed something? — billinghurst sDrewth 04:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They were building massive sockfarms, cross multiple sites. It is not constructive for them to have hundreds of sleeper sock accounts. -- Cirt (talk) 04:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There would be hundreds of sockfarms and thousands of accounts that have been otherwise identified across and not blocked here. Your action doesn't seem to align with what we suggest, is something that is difficult to manage and seemingly of little direct value, especially compared with what we can do with our admin access and two year old inactive accounts. If it is that dangerous, shouldn't it be managed by stewards globally? — billinghurst sDrewth 05:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just do not see why it cannot be handled by both, or either or. There is clearly no benefit to allowing hundreds of socks in a sock farm to remain unblocked. -- Cirt (talk) 05:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Connection?[edit]

Hi,

Had an idiot, Dune Harrow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL), run through here today and was stopped fairly quickly by the good folks on at the time. I went and took a peek afterwards out of curiousity at some of the User's global contribs and see you've reverted him/her a few times already on some sister sites. Just thought I'd mention this prior interaction in light of your recent puppet-show efforts in case today was related. Prost. George Orwell III (talk) 00:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the positive interest in my efforts! Much appreciated! ;) It looks like this account has already been blocked at all sites where it has an active account, see [4]. -- Cirt (talk) 06:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cirt/Archive_1&oldid=13226407"