User talk:Harryjamespotter1980

Welcome to Wikisource

Hello, Harryjamespotter1980, and welcome to Wikisource! Thank you for joining the project. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• Help pages, especially for proofreading
• Help:Beginner's guide to Wikisource
• Style guide
• Inclusion policy
• Wikisource:For Wikipedians

You may be interested in participating in

• Proofread of the Month
• Monthly Challenge
• Requested texts

Add the code {{active projects}}, {{PotM}} or {{Collaboration/MC}} to your page for current Wikisource projects.

You can put a brief description of your interests on your user page and contributions to another Wikimedia project, such as Wikipedia and Commons.

Have questions? Then please ask them at either

• Wikisource:Scriptorium; or
• Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help

I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikisource, the library that is free for everyone to use! In discussions, please "sign" your comments using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username if you're logged in (or IP address if you are not) and the date. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question here (click edit) and place {{helpme}} before your question.

Again, welcome! Billinghurst (talk) 08:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Work structure

Hi! Welcome to Wikisource. I see you are making good progress with the Summa Theologiae! Just one hint about the structure of works at Wikisource. We generally organise works in a hierarchy like "Summa Theologica/Question 7", rather than as a "flat" name such as "Question 7.....". Also, it is usually unnecessary to add the title of the chapter ("THE INFINITY OF GOD (FOUR ARTICLES)"), unless that chapter doesn't have a number (such as "Introduction", "Appendix", etc). If you do add that, it means you can't skip to another chapter by simply changing the number in the address, you have to know the exact title, punctuation and capitalisation of the chapter page you want to skip to. It also makes automatic parsing and listing of the book contents that bit harder.

I would be happy to move all the pages to a hierarchical structure under Summa Theologiae if you like, and take care of any links.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me, or anyone else, or in the Scriptorium.

Cheers, Inductiveload—talk/contribs 13:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I chatted with Inductiveload and suggested that there was some poor linking and probably not a good understanding of relative linking. I have been through and tied up the latter parts of the work, so it will enable text application in a more realistic manner. I do note that there are quite a few typos in the work, and the excessiv use of upper case will probably be problematic. I will try and get to the early parts of the work to tidy them up sometime early in the week, there is a bit to tidy up. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both for you recomendations and have already started to make changes because of them. I would prefer to do most of this my self, although I did apprecient the small tweeks that were made. But if you could stop by and look at what I have in about 2 weeks and then possibly give feedback on the changes that would be great.—unsigned comment by Harryjamespotter1980 (talk) .

There are structural issues that can only done by an admin, eg. move pages without redirects, which I have done. Plus some of the extra pages need to have the content stripped, which will be moved up a layer and then originating pages deleted, again an admin job. The textual stuff on page is up to you. Please note that we will need to be adding the source of the material that you are adding to the website, this is to check that it is in the public domain. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok I understand thank you and the content is coming from ccel.org and I have checked all is in the public domain.

I am think that I am done. Moved the remaining pages to subpages, did some copy and paste and ran a script to amend the links. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

All but one volume (v8 is missing, but I am going to have a better look) is now available as DjVu scans from the Internet Archive. There is a link on the front page of Summa Theologiae. This allows us to have a verifiable source of the text locally, rather than relying on a third party's (CCEL.org) transcription, which probably has errors (any work that large probably has errors). You can read H:SIDE for more information about proofreading using DjVu scans. If you have any problem, don't hesitate to ask. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 12:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Source and licence for Divine Names

On the work Divine Names there is neither licence nor source for the work. To be able to host the work, we need to be able to demonstrate that the work is in the public domain. To assist in the evaluation, it would be useful if you could identify the source of the work, and to do this you can complete the {{textinfo}} box on Talk:Divine Names. We would also look to have the translator details as part of this, as for translated works it is usually the component that would be the part most likely to be problematic. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand and I think I have fixed the source problem if you could check it, that would be great. {

Is the translation of the work published, or is this from an unpublished source? If the latter, then the guidelines at Wikisource:Translations indicate that we should be putting the translator as Wikisource. The other issue is that if we use and intend to rely on a name, then we should be putting this through a wikisource equivalent of Commons:Commons:OTRS process, creating an author page, establishing credentials, etc. Let me know which you think is the better way to progress. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I did more research and found that Roger Pearse was the editor for the online edition. The translation was made by Rev. John Parker. M.A. back in 1897 so I was not able to find very much info on him.—unsigned comment by Harryjamespotter1980 (talk) .

Great, will you update that through the work? Though there are quite a number of Rev. John Parkers, so we will need to just put the evidence onto the author's talk page, and not come to conclusion about life detail until we can get some conclusive data. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Addendum. Would you be able to sign your talk? To do so, use 4 ~, eg. ~~~~ and the software will convert that. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I was considering setting up the linkes to scripture by creating seprates pages to those specific links instead of to the specific section of the American Standard edition of the bible, though I can link to the specific verse and it does end up the top of the page it still ends up have like 30 other verses below and I think I can be somewhat confusing so I would rather just create the seprate pages with just the bible verses listed in the link. I was just wondering what you think of this and If there is a way of highlighting or something a certain part of a text in an atricle through a link please tell me. Harryjamespotter1980 (talk) 05:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Use the Template:Anchor on the landing page at the points to where you want it to link, {{anchor|V1}}, {{anchor|V2}} then on the pages where you make the references you would do a link like[[Title of the page#V1|encapsulate text]]. This reference to an can also be used to refer to a point on the same page. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Pointers on DjVu proofreading

I see you have made some progress on proofreading the DjVu of the first volume. I know there is a lot to take in when beginning to edit here (just ask Billinghurst how long it took to sort me out!), but here are a few pointers on editing in the page namespace:

• We don't generally keep jotted notes and stickers and things. Examples of these are the barcode sticker here and the library code here. We are after the published work, and the marginalia and doodling, unless historically interesting, don't fall under What Wikisource Includes.
• We try to emulate the look of the text formatting. Examples of this are centring, font sizes, some indentation and drop-initials. However, we do not need to slavish adherents to the exact look of the text. This is the Internet, that is a scanned book, so we can't get a perfect reproduction, and we shouldn't try. However, we can do better than plain text.
  • Useful templates you should probably know about: {{runningHeader}}, {{larger}}, {{smaller}}, {{x-larger}}, etc, {{center}}, {{right}}, {{small-caps}}, {{blackletter}}, {{hi}}, {{rule}}, {{SIC}}, {{block center}} and the <poem> tag.
  • Many of these have redirected shortcuts, so you can write {{c}} for {{center}}.
• Things we generally don't bother doing include:
  • Paragraph indentation (indenting just the first line of every paragraph). This can be done for a whole work using CSS styles, but even then, it can interfere with things like drop-capitals. Doing it by hand is a huge pain, and it gets worse if you want to change the indentation amount! However, unique paragraphs can be dealt with by themselves, and you can see templates like {{hi}} for those.
  • Specifying exact fonts for the text body (that is usually a reader choice, and we don't interfere in that, not least because not all users have all fonts, not even Times New Roman),
  • Typographical ligatures (ones that are just a pretty printing artifact, for example "ct" and "fi"). This is because these. Ligatures like æ are letters in their own rights. Long-s is an undecided question, so it's up to you on that, but be warned, it is a major pain in the backside if you do decide to use them!
• In the end, the text is king, and we focus on that first, and formatting second. However, it makes the book look so much nicer when the formatting is neatly done. Wikisource is about presenting the texts, rather than just hosting a text file.
• Unfortunately, all this does take a little bit longer, but the end product is far superior to any other ebooks you can find on the Net!

Again, sorry to pounce on you like this, but I think it will be easier for you to get it looking great from the start, rather than having to go back over yourself at a later date. If you are finding something particular hard or confusing, either you have the wrong end of a stick (quite possible, our documentation can be sparse, though we are working on it, and Wikisource can be challenging to newcomers - it was to me), or it is a recognised (or unknown) problem and you can help us solve it by complaining at the Scriptorium.

Cheers, Inductiveload—talk/contribs 03:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes I am haveing some Trouble with referencing and making it not the arrows but the numbers in the divine names if could look and the first part of chapter 1 and tell me what I am doing wrong that would be great

OK, could you please provide a link to the place on CCEL where the work is located? I can't find one by Roger Pearce, and I can't proofread a work to which I don't have the original. The link in the textinfo box should be one that I can click and it takes me directly to the work. Also, you need to be more specific about the public domain release, I am afraid it is not sufficient to just say "released" without at least a link to back it up. Thanks, Inductiveload—talk/contribs 13:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok I have fixed th link but am still having trouble with referecnes/footnotes in the Divine Name (refer to message by me above)

Thanks for that. I have done the first ref for you. You do:

text text text<ref>This is a footnote with a [[link]] (other wikimarkup works too)</ref> text text text
more text <ref name="note2">Second footnote</ref>
more text, but with a link to the SAME footnote as above<ref name="note2"/>

{{reflist}}

By the way, please leave talk-backs on my talk page, not my user page, as on the talk page it will alert me, on the user page, it won't. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 02:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Bots

Pentagon Papers

To George Orwell III

I was just wondering what you were planning to do with the article as I was planning on working on it I just didn't want us to be accidently steping on each others work.

Not me. I just saw you remove a Supreme Court case link and there was too many dopey Wikipedia ones so I pointed some of 'em back to Wikisource. Let folks go to Wikipedia from our Portals if they want to.

To anyone

I was also wondering if there is a way to turn a pdf into a DjVu scan Harryjamespotter1980 (talk) 04:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I use http://any2djvu.djvuzone.org/ It works most of the time. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

INDOCHINA IN U.S. WARTIME POLICY, 1941-1945

U.S. NEUTRALITY IN THE FRANCO-VIET MINH WAR, 1946-1949

ORIGINS OF U.S. INVOLVEMENT IN VIETNAM

1. INDOCHINA IN U.S. WARTIME POLICY, 1941-1945 
A. ROOSEVELT'S TRUSTEESHIP CONCEPT 
1. Military Strategy Pre-eminent 
US Policy and the Bao Dai regime

Leverage: France had more than the United States

Perceptions of the Communist threat to Southeast Asia and to basic US interests

The Inter-Agency debate of US intervention in Indochina

To Billinghurst

I have read almost all of the help pages on wikimedia and still don't understand how to turn a djvu file into a proofreading page with the image on one side and the text transcription on the other could you please help. Harryjamespotter1980 (talk) 01:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, presuming that you have a djvu file, upload it to Commons: (presuming that it is in the public domain]], and please give it a descriptive name. Then here at English Wikisource we create an Index: page to the same name, add the requisite detail to the form, and save it, and you should end up a page that looks somewhat like Index:The fairy tales of science.djvu

So for this example, to Commons we uploaded a file and called it The fairy tales of science.djvu, so that becomes File:The fairy tales of science.djvu. We created Index:The fairy tales of science.djvu here, and that enables us to create Page:The fairy tales of science.djvu/x ... Page:The fairy tales of science.djvu/xxx. These are the side by side images and proofreading. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Page:The Life of Michael Angelo.djvu/148

Hi. I saw you validated this page Page:The Life of Michael Angelo.djvu/148. The reason why I formatted as I did is that the signature "Thomao Cavalieri." could stay close to the sentence "Yours very devotedly." when transcluded (not 100% sure as I cannot verify now without changing back) . With the formatting you have used, the signature will go far away when trascluded and thrown to the very right of the page. I am not going to make an issue out of this but I think the other way was preferrable. --Mpaa (talk) 20:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

New page creations

I notice you are creating pages with lines of the bible, eg. Luke 15:7. I think this needs to be discussed before you create any more of these pages.

• The pages have no source.
• That title could have many possible targets, versions of the bible.
• It is already possible to link to lines in many of these versions, and pages have been created for the different books within them.

Maybe could raise this at the scriptorium, or get the views of users who have worked on the pages and incoming links. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 17:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Copyright

To Billinghurst

Would you mind helping me, I and looking at the website [1] and there copyright terms are somewhat confusing In one area it says fre to copy, distribute etc. but another place it say no coping so if you could help clarifiy that would help Harryjamespotter1980 (talk) 01:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry mate, you will need to take it to Wikisource:Scriptorium. Been flat chat and I am now not back online for a couple of weeks. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

confused

You validated a page yesterday that I had proofread. You found an error (modem -> modern) for which I'm grateful; however, you also appear to have changed to words to something incorrect (not -> no : be -> by) and moved the italics outside the quotes unnecessarily, see [2]. I'm baffled by the edit.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

On Interpretation et al.

Dear Harry,

Aristotle's On Interpretation translated by E. M. Edghill has been copyright researched, and since we don't know the translator's death date, we don't know if it's still copyrighted. See Works of Aristotle for the research we did for the copyright of each work translated in the Oxford University Works of Aristotle. I will have to delete this work. If you would like to re-add it, consider using the O. F. Owen edition instead, which is copyright-free. ResScholar (talk) 06:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Ditto for Prior Analytics, and probably most of the rest of the Organon, if you are the one who added them. ResScholar (talk) 06:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

More removals

Hi, I removed Physics today, and I will soon have to nominate: On the Heavens, On Generation and Corruption, Meteorology (Aristotle) and On the Soul. The discussion for Physics is on the WS:COPYVIO page, where new discussions of these other four works are expected to appear. But on the bright side, the rest of the works look okay. ResScholar (talk) 00:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me know if you would like to still work on any of these works, I would be able to help you find a substitute translator that would copyright compliant. ResScholar (talk) 03:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, responding to your question. The date of origination for these works are all listed at Works of Aristotle. Generally we can't host works written after 1922. There is an exception though. If the author of the work lived in Great Britain (which is our assumption for all of these) and they died before 1927, their works have (in general) been released to the public domain before 1997, and the U. S. government won't restore their copyright if there was one. Unfortunately, none of the works that I have described on this page fit that exception either. Most of the authors' dates of decease are listed at Works of Aristotle as well if you're interested in checking. American law maintains copyright for as long as 95 years for these works produced in lands foreign to the U. S. And at some point they restored copyrights foreign to the U.S. that had previously expired for those works not expired in their home countries as of about 1996, depending on the country. Sorry, but Wikisource has had legal action taken against it because of some French works that were copyrighted, so its a real life concern. ResScholar (talk) 07:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

In my recitation of the rules, I forgot to mention that if a work is posthumous (like Meteorology, which was published in the 1930s) it is another exception and extends the copyright term of author. I don't know why there was a delay, so maybe there is another version out there by this author that was written earlier and is copyright-free. ResScholar (talk) 07:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

Thanks for taking the time to investigate the law, but the copyright protection in place in 1996 in the U.K. was that of having restored those "50 years + lifetime" works back in 1988, according to w:Copyright_law_of_the_United_Kingdom#Extension_of_copyright_term. And that's what one of our sources says: the copyright status "as of" January 1, 1996. this resource ResScholar (talk) 08:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, I was incorrect. The wikipedia article says it happened right on January 1, 1996, not 1988 like I said. ResScholar (talk) 08:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

PD Aristotle translations

Hi Harry, you asked about public domain Aristotle translations. Here is a list of some that we don't have:

Organon (Posterior Analytics, Sophistical Elenchi, Topics): I have uploaded the scans for versions by Octavius Freire Owen at Index:O. F. Owen's Organon of Aristotle Vol. 1 (1853).djvu. That page has Posterior Analytics and there is a link on that page to Vol. 2 scans that has Topics and Sophistical Elenchi. I plan on eventually originating two index pages for each volume of the Organon texts: One with Owen's commentary, and one with just cross references (which I am doing now), because Aristotle wrote these, as the rest of his works, on a level to educated adults in general, and probably ought to be allowed to speak for himself. And probably a third version by cutting and pasting the one without notes that will allow you to originate internet and local links to chapters instead of page numbers.

update: The unannotated version of Organon that is nearing completion will already accept links to chapters instead of page numbers. I was just formatting the links wrong. Drop me a line if you have the same linking problem. ResScholar (talk) 16:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Metaphysics: this link is a 1908 version by W. D. Ross in the public domain in the U.S. I don't know if the rest of the works in the compilation it appears in are though.

Physics, On the Heavens, On Generation and Corruption, Meteorology: Thomas Taylor wrote a translation of these works that are in the public domain, but they are not yet available at the Internet Archive. According to his Dictionary of National Biography profile, Taylor's translation may have imperfections.

• Physics—the Loeb Classical Library version of Physics by Philip Wicksteed is not online, but it was apparently not renewed and is PD (in the U.S.). Here is a copy of Thomas Taylor's Physics at Hathitrust, but getting scans to qualify the work at a level 3 "proofread" status would be difficult; you would have to be a member to download the whole work as a PDF and then would need to convert it to DJVU. But it is apparently the only downloadable one in the public domain in the U.S.

• On Generation and Corruption—Here is the Loeb Classical Library version under the title "On Coming-to-Be and Passing-away" by E. S. Forster at IA. The copyright was not renewed and would be PD in the U.S.

• On the Heavens—William Keith Chambers Guthrie did the Loeb Classical library one (PD in the US), but I can't find a scan online.

• Meteorology—under the name "Meteorologica", H. D. P. Lee did the Loeb Classical library one (PD in the US), also no scan online.

On the Soul

• William Alexander Hammond 1902 [3]
• Edwin Wallace 1882 [4]
• R. D. Hicks 1907 [5] two of the copies of this work at IA, including this one, have two pages missing in the introduction. The other one has some blurred pages. ResScholar (talk) 10:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Please excuse my butting into this post, but I can obtain that Hathi work for you if you would like. I'll need some time (it's a long work), and I can't start right now, but I can probably get it done tomorrow. Cheers, Inductiveload—talk/contribs 12:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for offering, but I don't think Harry's ever worked with a scanned work, so unless he decides to pick that one, I think it would be best if we take it one step at a time. Aristotle's not even the kind of author you can enjoy reading with full understanding while proofing, so let's see what tasks Harry is up to. I don't want to pressure him. ResScholar (talk) 01:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Just give me a poke if you do want it done. :-) Inductiveload—talk/contribs 04:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned Bible verses

Hi, I'm reviewing Special:LonelyPages and I see that there are several Bible verses in the King James Version that you created some months ago, but have not linked to. What is your intention with these? If you still have a purpose for them, then that's fine.

By the way, I find the easiest way to create a link to a particular verse is to use [[Bible (King James)/Genesis#1:1|Genesis i:1]], for example. Cheers, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC) I no longer have purpose for them If you are able to delete them go ahead. Thanks. Harryjamespotter1980 (talk) 18:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, all done. Cheers, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Pentagon papers help

Hi,

I noticed today that your efforts on the Pentagon Papers have been duplicated over on the Internet Archive. They have DjVu's with a workable embedded text-layer included. (See the full list in long form file names at the HTTPS link at the very bottom of the left-hand column listing all the files available first in short-name format; to import replacement Files directly to Commons, you might need to change the url from https:// to just http:// but I don't know too much about stuff like that to be honest).

I replaced Part IV A 4 as a test case and it came out fine. I'd purge the File: once or twice on Commons for each file replaced just to make sure the new text-layer comes through to the Page: namespace without old caching getting in the way. If for some reason a new file does not let a text-layer come through, drop me a note and I'll see if I can't fix it. Please update the Source info for each file you replace and update the Proofreading status to "to be Proofread" on the Index; page as well. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Copyright discussion for Second Vatican Council Documents

Hi, I see that today you have added {{PD-author-release}}. Could you please come across to the copyright discussion and participate in the discussion? Thanks, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Just a reminder you were going to come back in a couple weeks with more support for your arguments. Jeepday (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of See letter to Titus

I have marked the page you created, See letter to Titus, for potential deletion because it does not look like a unique work. It appears to be a version of the Epistle to Titus. I cannot see any source or prior work with the title of this page. If you would like to challenge this deletion, or just to comment, please contribute to the discussion. Thanks, AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)