User talk:

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Hello,, welcome to Wikisource! Thanks for your interest in the project; we hope you'll enjoy the community and your work here. If you need help, see our help pages (especially Adding texts and Wikisource's style guide). You can discuss or ask questions from the community in general at 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. I would recommend that you get a username. You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and there are many benefits of having a username. (If you edit without a username, your IP address is used to identify you instead.) --Benn Newman 23:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I still recommend that you get an account. ;) --Benn Newman (AMDG) 01:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for locating all that translation info!--BirgitteSB 19:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome, Birgitte. The detective work is, of course, much easier to do when you own a copy of the translations! 06:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


This work is listed as two seperate translations. Can you verify which information is correct?--BirgitteSB 21:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The translation of what a user called "the Loeb edition" is identical to the 1849 Francis Adams translation. It stands to reason that the 1888 Loeb edition incorporated the text from the 1849 Adams edition (Volume 1 shown here in Google Books) and that the Loeb edition is probably the work that the text was transcribed from by the user or the party he copied it from. We could move that citation to the discussion page as it could foster confusion. 15:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Here is an 1886 edition of the same work (volume 2 where the Aphorisms are included) that allows searching. 16:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


Please do not removed pd-old-70 from articles just because they are already on author pages. You could make even more uncategorized articles.--Jusjih 15:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Please bring what you think to the Scriptorium. If you are a serious editor, you should consider registering a username.--Jusjih 15:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for your message, and sorry I haven't replied at the Scriptorium yet. The 1923 rule applies to all U.S. copyright, just about, we think, and at least as far as it concerns this project. However, if you try to apply it to non-U.S. authors, you might get the wrong answer as far as the inclusion policies are concerned, because we also try to respect foreign copyrights as far as we can. Let me give you an example to to illustrate!

Most of Einstein's most significant work was published in 1905 (see Annus Mirabilis Papers), and so is in the public domain in the United States. However, he was a Swiss citizen at the time, and the papers were first published in Germany: both countries have a copyright term which runs to 70 years from the death of the author (often noted as 70 pma) and, as Einstein died in 1955, the papers will be under copyright in Switzerland and the European Union until the end of 2025. Therefore we don't host them.

The 1923 rule will work for U.S. authors, because just about every country apart from the U.S. applies the "rule of the shorter term". The first novels in the Tarzan series are in the public domain worldwide, even though Edgar Rice Burroughs didn't die until 1950, because they were published from 1912 onwards in the United States by an American author. Other countries refuse to apply a copyright which the novels do not have in their source country.

I hope this goes someway to answering your question! Best wishes, Physchim62 00:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

copyvio notice[edit]

Hi, why do you think that History of the United States 1801-09/The First Administration of Thomas Jefferson/I:4 is a copyvio? Could you list it on WS:COPYVIO with an explanation. Thanks, John Vandenberg 02:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi John. Responded on WS:COPYVIO as you know. Truthfully, I'm replying here too only because I keep getting nagged that I have new messages. 16:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

pretty please[edit]

G'day, you are a long term contributor, and have started and contributed to some interesting community discussions. It would be really nice if you could create an account using either your name or a pseudonym. For example, you could even call yourself User:User126 if you wanted to be cute. Ideally, it is preferable from a social aspect if you chose a name that is a bit uniquely you, as we will be conversing with you often. This might seem silly, and perhaps I am old fashion or something, but it would be nice to put a name to the contributions.

Also, creating a user will allow you to take advantage of some of the features that are only available to logged in users, due to technical restrictions. As a few examples, .. there are user preferences to suit your way of wiki-ing; a "watchlist" which reports changes to a subset of pages (the ones you care about); your edits can be marked as "minor" so that other users know when you havent done anything worth being curious about; there are tools that can be added to your toolbox to automatically create an empty {{header ... }} ready to be filled in; after you are a bit steadier on your new wikilegs, you will be able to help us administrate the site; every year, elections are held for the Wikimedia Foundation board, and only registered users can vote; I could go on and on.

IP's will fade away; but usernames will stay forever! Wikisource needs you... John Vandenberg 06:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Critique of Judgment[edit]

I was the one reviewing your changes, and I'm sure you can understand that it was quite a mind-field to wrap my head around. You didnt use talk pages, and you didn't try to contact Britney-Boy (talkcontribs) (he is active on Wikipedia).

Initially I was going with your renaming as "The Critique of Judgement", however then I realised that you had copy&pasted the previous content onto new page names, and asked for speedy deletion of all of the pages created by Britney-Boy. Thats not how we rename pages, so I had to undo that in the process.

Regarding the naming of this translation, WorldCat has it under many titles; it makes sense to use the shortest one, in order to reduce the URL length. Is the edition you hold in your hand PD ? If not, we might find that "Judgment" was used throughout in the 1911 edition, in which case we should use that. John Vandenberg 05:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

My own opinion is that we should look for pretty URLs. i.e. we should avoid Unicode in the title, brackets, and consider shortening titles when many levels of subpages are involved. For short works without sub-pages, a long title will still be a reasonable length URL, however with nested sub-pages, a long title ends up even longer with the additional URL components are added to point to a sub-page. The ideal maximum length of a URL is about 70-80 characters, because that is the traditional line length which still plays an important part in email programs.

This URL already goes over that, and adding another four characters for "The_" doesnt have any significant advantage that I can see:

Also, I have not agreed with "Judgement" over "Judgment". I'm interested in knowing which of the two was used in the 1911 edition. John Vandenberg 06:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

{Edit conflict}

John, Britney-Boy seemed to me to have left very suddenly, when he left in September or August, as there were many loose ends that he let remain on his project, such as the doubled names, the mismatched titles of the table of contents and the mistitled pages. I was hoping to set his project back on the right path, and possibly continue what he had started. I meant no disrespect by retitling the pages and I was cautious while I made the changes to leave a trail of links, by which he could find his way back to his project, if he was so inclined, even though I was only planning to wait one day before completing the migration. That is why it is factually incorrect when you say I asked for speedy deletion of ALL pages created by Britney-Boy. I made the central page "Critique of Judgment" into a redirect, retaining the complete history of the page, and containing all the names of the previous links available to anyone who edits even the then current version of the page, not to mention the ones contained in the history list.

I don't believe a person comes back to their work here through remembering the titles of project pages such as "Critique of Critique of Judgment/Introduction", they do so by the work they did in copying the content and attempting to represent the logical structure of the book, and any word choice that orders the structure is as good as another, or better if it more accurately executes one's supposed intentions to effect such representations.

Somebody twice changed the ordering of a text I developed here, not just the names of the pages, but it was further divided into the logical units, without anyone attempting to contact me. In the first case I had a mixed opinion, but in the second I disagreed, but merely forked the project so that both versions could live happily side by side.

I'm sorry if I caused you labor in declining my speedy deletion nominations, but I had seen cumbersome titles deleted all at once before in similar clean-up projects, and I thought it was more appropriate to deal with what appeared to me to be a simple and routine problem that way rather than recite a long story to an administrator. I apologize if I was in error. But I knew speedy deletion requests had to be reviewed by an administrator, who could correct me if I was totally in the dark, which apparently I was. Soft redirects, I suppose, are the best way to make absolutely certain one can find their way back to the text in question. And I really didn't realize the migration of four or five pages would be so difficult to follow.

Your idea to use the shortest appropriate name has its merits, but also please see the ideas I set forth on your talk page about indefinite and definite articles.

The translation I am using used has a typographical arrangement and work selection copyrighted 1952, but the text must surely be orthographically congruent with the public domain 1911 version. I know this because this 1952 version acknowledges the reprinting of the Oxford edition and also because it contains some editorial material that boasts its commitment to refrain from editorial framing devices of the presented works, as well as the consistent use of the spelling "judgment" in that lengthy editorial material.

As for large URLs on specific pages, that is a concern as well when it comes to brevity (that I didn't consider), but bear in mind, there may be better ways to shorten them such as by using abbreviations for part, section, book, moment. Britney-Boy used incorrect nomenclature found nowhere in the book, like "volume", and my goal was to make the work presentable. I had been working on An Essay Towards a Theory of Art, and had created an Aesthetics category, and wanted other works to share that category. That's when I discovered the inconsistencies in the version of Kant's work found here at Wikisource, so I spent some spare time in preparing the work for its inclusion in that category. 06:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Britney-Boy is active on Wikipedia, which is part of Wikimedia, so you could have quickly reached him here. He may also respond quickly to a user talk page comment here, because the MediaWiki software can notify registered users by email when pages are modified. (again, another reason why you should register)
Requesting the speedy deletion of the efforts of fellow contributors is a definite no-no. We are building a community, so kind words and good advice are what is called for when a problem is encountered. If a page is incorrectly named, it can be moved, using the "move" button at the top of every page; that keeps the history in-tact and visible to non-admins. As an example, see my recent (and on-going) restructure to Lorna Doone (note that every 10th page appears on the contributions list of user Giddie). If I were to delete his contributions because they were inappropriately named, it would appear as if he had never contributed, which does him an injustice and would deter him from contributing further. Soft deleting those is not appropriate either, because in a month they will automatically be deleted without any admin oversight (a bot deletes them).
As there has already been a bit of unnecessary moving around, I suggest that you propose a plan of attack on Talk:Critique of Judgment. List the proposed page names and how you wish to split the existing pages. Provided nobody objects, you can them proceed knowing this will be the last time the pages will need to be moved around. I will be curious about length of URL, but you have suggested a few interesting approaches there, and I wont object unless there is an obvious flaw.
John Vandenberg 07:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Anyone who can leave a text in the disorganized condition that Britney-Boy left it in for two and a half months, doesn't have an ego fragile enough to be offended by someone cleaning it up without notice. We're talking about 45 minutes of work that he did, start to finish. That's why I didn't bother to notify him. If I had gone through the process of describing what was out of place, it would have been like going to elaborate lengths to ask his permission to pick up after him.
If you look at your sentence, you seem to be saying it's wrong to ask an admin for a speedy deletion, which gives the appearance of presuming that it was asked for in bad faith, rather than in an attempt to quickly resolve a "housekeeping" problem in a way that would further the interests of everyone involved. In the future, I have no problem requesting a page move, instead of using the speedy deletion process and redirects.
As I said, my contributions to Critique of Judgement were remedial in nature, while retaining every positive contribution that Britney-Boy made, regardless of my own preferences. At present, I do not wish to continue to engage in the planning for the rest of the work, so you can expect my organizational suggestions to be brief. And hopefully you will not object to my requesting speedy deletions of the new pages I produced for the migration task that probably took as much of my time as it took Britney-Boy to create all of the original pages in the first place. 18:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I understand that your clean up was necessary and was done in the best of intentions. All that I am pointing out is that "speedy deletion" of good faith contributions of another user is not likely to the right approach, as our speedy deletion policy only permits it in specific cases.
In this case, moving their contributions around is the ideal solution. Feel free to continue without proposing a plan, as that was merely a suggestion. John Vandenberg 15:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
My suggestion to propose a plan of attack was only to avoid any accidental mistakes; if you


Hi, I have nominated you for adminship; see WS:ADMIN. I am told that it is not technically possibly for your IP address to be an admin, but I am also told that you can create a new user, and "confirm" that the new user is you by posting a talk message to that effect while logged out. John Vandenberg 15:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

End of[edit]

I am changing IPs, so today probably marks the last use of this IP address. But look forward to a new IP address that I will use whenever I work so long that Wikisource logs me out in the middle of an edit. 04:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

My new address is: Ninety-nine.One hundred six-five.Two hundred thirty-seven.Two hundred thirty-three. It appears to be a static address and non-network. ResScholar 03:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion discussion[edit]

Please see Wikisource:Proposed_deletions#Category:Eccentric_denominations_and_Category:Smaller_religious_movements. Cirt (talk) 21:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This is the discussion page for an anonymous user who has not created an account yet, or who does not use it. We therefore have to use the numerical IP address to identify him/her. Such an IP address can be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user and feel that irrelevant comments have been directed at you, please create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users.