User talk:Beleg Tâl

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Beleg Tâl Beleg Tâl | Talk Archives

The help you proposed to add Pamphlets translated from the russian (by Leo Tolstoy) a few weeks ago[edit]

Hi, I didn't see your message in time, if you can still help me add those works by Tolstoy, I'd love to. I'm a beginner in wikisource, I just added a few things here and there, I'd love to get more involved in adding works by Tolstoy and Weil, as well as adding translations of those precious philosophers. I also have a friend who digitized manually some old books who might contribute as well. The thing I didn't understand was how to import the file for Pamphlets.

Best regards Nazmi September the 12th @Beleg Tâl:

@Nazmifr: I placed some helpful links on your talk page so that you can learn how to add works like this. In particular, see Help:Beginner's guide to adding texts. —— Because this is a difficult work, I created the Index page for you. It is at Index:Pamphlets. Translated from the Russian.djvu. However, I just discovered that someone already uploaded it, at Index:Tolstoy - Pamphlets.djvu. I will need to merge the duplicates. You can proceed with Index:Tolstoy - Pamphlets.djvu as desired. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:03, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Author:J. Thomson—not so certain[edit]

Looking at Category:Authors-Th has me thinking that the specific redirect that you have created is not the best that we can do for that option. If that is what we have, I believe it should only be the piped visual label, with a full link underneath. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:28, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Not sure exactly what you're getting at, but I don't intend to keep the redirect after the links have been updated. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Of the Imitation of Christ[edit]

I happened to see your recent activity at Of the Imitation of Christ and Index:Imitation-of-christ-1901.djvu and poked my head in. After looking around I added some notes at Index talk:Imitation-of-christ-1901.djvu#Drop Initials in image form. Letting the drive-by editor know "how to do it" seems a good thing to me. These notes okay? Shenme (talk) 04:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Deleting Functional_Package_Management_with_Guix/Build_expressions_and_package_descriptions[edit]

I talked to the author and he claims that GDFL is compatible with CC-BY-SA with the following quote from the GDFL:

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---


``Massive Multiauthor Collaboration Site (or ``MMC Site) means any World Wide Web server that publishes copyrightable works and also provides prominent facilities for anybody to edit those works. A public wiki that anybody can edit is an example of such a server. A ``Massive Multiauthor Collaboration (or ``MMC) contained in the site means any set of copyrightable works thus published on the MMC site.

``CC-BY-SA means the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 license published by Creative Commons Corporation, a not-for-profit corporation with a principal place of business in San Francisco, California, as well as future copyleft versions of that license published by that same organization.

``Incorporate means to publish or republish a Document, in whole or in part, as part of another Document.

An MMC is ``eligible for relicensing if it is licensed under this License, and if all works that were first published under this License somewhere other than this MMC, and subsequently incorporated in whole or in part into the MMC, (1) had no cover texts or invariant sections, and (2) were thus incorporated prior to November 1, 2008.

The operator of an MMC Site may republish an MMC contained in the site under CC-BY-SA on the same site at any time before August 1, 2009, provided the MMC is eligible for relicensing. --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

Do mi kredas ke la dokumento jam estas CC-BY-SA se oni volas. (en. I think the document is already CC-BY-SA if you want it to be)

The author thus does agree to double license the text. Could you please restore the page?--So9q (talk) 20:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@So9q: As it says in the text you provided, we can only relicense a GFDL text that was uploaded before Nov 1 2008. This text was uploaded in 2013, so we are not able to relicense it. Instead, the author must relicense it himself. He can do so by emailing with the following text:

I hereby affirm that I, Ludovic Courtès, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the media workès_-_Functional_Package_Management_with_Guix.djvu.

I agree to publish the above-mentioned work under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International.

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Beleg Tâl (talk) 05:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your notice, we seem to both have missed that detail. I will pass it on.--So9q (talk) 20:52, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Now it has been done and has been marked as free. Can you undelete the page now?--So9q (talk) 11:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
@So9q: Yes check.svg Done at Functional Package Management with GuixBeleg Tâl (talk) 18:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC)


While I don't disagree with the cleanup you're doing, be advised that WS:ANN is a proposed policy, and WS:MOS allows for links to Wikipedia provided the target of the link is clear from the context of the source.

I do think that the particular work you're cleaning up has abused the overlinking, but it's a shame to lose all that without first copying that content to an Annotated edition, which is allowed for in the guidelines as long as it is clearly identified as an annotated edition and as long we have an unannotated version as well. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:51, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: That's fair, and normally I would try to preserve an annotated version. However, I don't think it's worth preserving in this case. The vast majority of links are just Herr Dühring's Wikipedia page over and over and over, or are copyvio from another edition. Preserving the remainder amidst the cleanup is not worth the effort at all in my opinion. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

When printed wrong...?[edit]

I was peeking around at Recent Changes and saw you moving things under heads. I then wandered around a bit and peeked at Pastoral_Poems_(Breton);_Selected_Poetry_(Wither);_Pastoral_Poetry_(Browne)/Prelude. (source [1])

Alas straight off I see

Seem unto us with black steams
To pollute the Sun's bright beams,

Eh? Looked around with Google and found multiple places that agreed and others that didn't, having

Seem they not with their black streams
To pollute the sun's bright beams;

What to do when it really seems that editions (and some of those perhaps derivative of a corrupted version) have what really seems the wrong word?

Perhaps a parallel question, can one use {{SIC}} to suggest a possible alternate reading? As in steams Shenme (talk) 01:15, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

@Shenme: Our edition must read "steams" because that is what the source says. If you have reason to believe this is a typo, then it is acceptable to use {{SIC}} to indicate that "streams" is correct. However, I searched for both readings and all the older (pre-1800) editions have "steams" so I really do not think it a typo. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
@Shenme: further to this:
  • Every edition that starts the line with "Seem unto us" ends it with "steams". Editions that start the line with "Seem they not" vary between "steams" and "streams". The alternate reading of "streams" would therefore seem to post-date the "seem they not" variant.
  • Considering that the previous lines are about "fog" and "vapours", it looks like "streams" was itself originally a typo.
So in the end it's just two variant readings, and I wouldn't mark up either version. But it's interesting to see the history of the change from "steams" to "streams" in some editions. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Wonderful! Finding the parallelisms with words 'fog' and 'vapours' is ultimately convincing!
My partner did their dissertation on a particular book held in Assisi, which was composed of a grouping of some manuscripts. The research was not only on its content, but where the book was created, and how it reached Assisi, and also on the provenance of the manuscripts from which these manuscripts were copied. That is, what copies did the originating library copy from?
So deep probing on minuscule variations present, to trace likenesses and divergences from other, known manuscripts. See w:Stemmatics and w:Lectio difficilior potior, among others which pop up when searching on w:Karl Lachmann.
I don't doubt many copied from a divergent copy of this work. And it is hard to resist 'fixing' a word or line that "reads wrongly". But once you point out the divergence in style and theme it becomes obvious 'steams' must be correct! Thank you! Shenme (talk) 22:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)