User talk:Hrishikes

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome

Hello, Hrishikes, 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:

Carl Spitzweg 021-detail.jpg

You may be interested in participating in

Add the code {{active projects}}, {{PotM}} or {{CotW}} 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


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 IP address (or username if you're logged in) 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! Yann (talk) 11:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Archive 1, Archive 2

Contents

Index:The Practical Book of Oriental Rugs (1913).djvu[edit]

Where did the 1946 death date come from? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 01:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: See here. Hrishikes (talk) 02:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Would be nice to get additional confirmation, like an obit. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:41, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
@ShakespeareFan00: Additional: 1, 2. Hrishikes (talk) 12:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Revert[edit]

Author:Henry William Bunn Moreno There are no works here by him. —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@Koavf: Index:A Hundred Years Of Bengali Press.pdf. Please go through the matter carefully before indiscriminate editing. This work is clearly mentioned ax transcription project in the author's list of works. Hrishikes (talk) 04:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Indiscriminate? But it's not linked there. If it's in the process of transcription then it's not already hosted. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
@Koavf: As I said, please read carefully. The works are listed chronologically and this work is at No. 7. Plus, where did you get this peculiar definition of hosting? Hosting does not indicate only transcluded works. Transcription projects also come under hosting because the work is present, as an index file, in this site. Hrishikes (talk) 04:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I did I honestly don't know what "clearly mentioned ax transcription" means but I don't see why you're talking down to me: there's nothing here for anyone to read of his work. Can you point me to any kind of usage guidelines? If there's nothing here than someone can read of his work, that seems like a perfect example of there being no works. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
The easiest solution to this is to transclude the title page to the Mainspace:, mark the work as incomplete, then link to it from the Author: page. As you're about to work on the book it will be fine. If you aren't going to work on the book, then leave the Author: page as it is until such time as there is a Mainspace: page. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Reuest for help[edit]

Hi,

I am looking for a copyrightfree, copyright (of photographa) related Bombay Highcourt Judgement of Kesari Maratha Trust" Vs "Devidas Tularam Bagul". This I could not avail in online free resources. May be you you can give a try.

Thanks and warm regards

Mahitgar (talk) 12:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@Mahitgar: You can download it from the website of Bombay High Court by entering the specifics. As per this judgement, if photograph is taken with consent of subject, the photographer has copyright and if the name of photographer appears below the photograph, that constitutes notice of copyright. Hrishikes (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, sorry I could not succeed in accessing this case, which specifics did you try to fetch this specific case on their website.

Thanks and Warm Regards Mahitgar (talk) 16:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@Mahitgar: Judgements can be searched by the name of the parties (plaintiff/defendant) in the websites of Supreme Court and Delhi HC. Not so in the site of Bombay HC. There you have to search by case no., case type etc. So it needs expertise, which I do not have. Hrishikes (talk) 04:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Index:Legislative Acts of the Governor General of India in Council, 1852-1858.djvu[edit]

Courtesy note concerning missing pagges... see Index: page for details ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: Fixed from another book. Hrishikes (talk) 15:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Index:Legislative Acts of the Governor General of India in Council, 1869.djvu[edit]

Courtesy note, missing page see Index page concerned.

Also the volume for 1868 seems to bound with 1867 in the scans you uploaded.

@ShakespeareFan00: 1869 patched up from another work. 1867 and 1868 split. Hrishikes (talk) 03:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, but in the current situation in Act. VIII (p171) it's still missing the end of s. 438, and the start of s. 439 on the next page (from the substituted work). You might want to insert pp. 200 from the substituted work before the pp. 201 to be sure of having the entirety of that Act present for transcription.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
@ShakespeareFan00: Nothing is missing. All sections not present. 435 → 438 → 440. Hrishikes (talk) 13:05, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Okay... Where was it patched from so I can make a final check? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
@ShakespeareFan00: http://lawmin.nic.in/legislative/textofcentralacts/1869.pdf Hrishikes (talk) 13:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Had you considered involving the ministry concerned in the efforts to get Indian legislation into Wikisource, given the proposed project that was mentioned at the Scriptorium? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
@ShakespeareFan00: No, and I don't plan to. Why would I involve any ministry? Anyway, I have fixed the volume for 1876. Hrishikes (talk) 01:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Indian Legislation[edit]

Can we have a disscussion on how these should be titled in main-space?

Currently the module that supports {{short-title}} and it various dependents, doesn't handle a disambugation for different jurisdictions, in a nice way.

One of The Statutes collection you updated appears to use the suffix "(British India)" for purely Indian (Pre 1947) measures.

For UK acts, The convention on English Wikisource seems to be use the Short Title and Year, possibly omitting any lead articles (like "The"). I'm not sure if there is consistency about the comma between the Short Title and year. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

It would be nice to expand this convention possibly so that its possible to dismabig between measures passed in :-
Jurisdiction which passed it Long form of suggested suffix (to use in titles) Short form of suggested suffix (to use in summary displays)
United Kingdom (Westminster Parliament) (United Kingdom) (UK)
Scottish Parliament (Holyrood) (Scotland) (Scot.)
Welsh Assembly (Wales)
Northern Ireland (Stormont) (Northern Ireland.) (N. I.)
British India (Pre 1947) (British India) (B. I.)
Republic of Ireland (Post 1922) (Ireland) (RoI.) or (Ire.) or (Eire.)

And naturally it would be reasonable to disambig between the "Copyright Act 1909" (n Act of Congress in the US) and the "Copyright Act, 1956" which is a British measure.


{{Short-title}} is currently based on a Lua module that needs overhaul.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Indian laws (incl. pre-47) can be referred by number and year. Acts passed by the Legislative Council of India and the Parliament of India are a continuous flow; for both, act no. and year will suffice for short title. Normally Indian acts mention the title in section 1 of the act and also use the comma before year. (see here.) British India and Republic of India need not be differentiated, this will be apparent from the year. Hrishikes (talk) 12:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Okay then. I'd still strongly recommend using the (United Kingdom) Suffix for titling of post-1707 British Acts (with application to India), so as to differentiate them from the Legislative Council series, (or indeed those of other Jurisdictions)
If there was a mainspace convention of titling the Legislative Council acts using something like "Act 1 of 1835 (British India.)" then it's very easy to code a suitable template for cross-referencing. (I'm including the suffix so that the series is specifcly differentiated from those of other jurisdictions series.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Act_1_of_1834_(India) was the first Act from the collection you uploaded earlier.

If needed it can be moved around. BTW the layotu formatting was what I was going to ask about next. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: I have reservations about using the short title in main space. Acts and judgements are cited by the short title mainly by the lawyers. Generally a law is known by the full title, Wikipedia articles are also titled like that. For example, people are generally not aware that the Indian Copyright Act 1957 is the same as Act 14 of 1957. The Uruguay Round Agreements Act of the USA is generally referred to as the URAA, not as Public Law 103-465. Short titles will reduce searchability, how do you propose to resolve that? Hrishikes (talk) 04:05, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I fully understand your reservations, to me the 1957 one you mention would be fully titled to me as "Indian Copyright Act 1957 (No 14 of 1957) (India)" which covers all the points I made. And to me the first part of that Indian Copyright Act 1957 is what a UK short-title would look like (The equivalent British act of the same period would be Copyright Act, 1956 (United Kingdom)" BTW

If Act 1 of 1834 has an official Long title, and drawing on what some UK sources would do for a pre short-title UK act, It maybe titled along the lines "Concerning the Governor General (Act 1 of 1834) (India)" which covers most of the concerns I have. On the other hand if there IS a modern official title for this, we should use that.

I think this needs to be taken to a wider forum personally.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Category:Index - File to check[edit]

Hi. Just looking in this category, and lots of those works have been added by you. When you have some time it would be great if you were able do some checking and fixing to your uploads/creations. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: I normally don't go for it because I am not good at it, and likely to do mistakes. ShakespeareFan00 usually takes care of this part in case of my uploads, and quite meticulously. In case they are unwilling, I'll have a go. Hrishikes (talk) 08:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
In most case, the remainder of items in the category concerned, I'd left because they aren't necessarily out of copyright in the UK, based on my understanding. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
@ShakespeareFan00: Which ones? The Asiatic Society vols are quite old. If u can notify me case-to-case, that would be better. Hrishikes (talk) 13:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Not necessarily PD in UK:-

No author dates:-

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: All done. Author data for the Dutt Family Album available at Index:The Bengali Book of English Verse.djvu. Hrishikes (talk) 12:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks have stubbed the Dutt authors listed for the Dutt Familay Album, you may wish to expand slightly. Bengali poetry/literature isn't my area at all. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Index:A Collection of the Acts of the Central Legislature and Ordinances of the Governor General of India, 1946.djvu[edit]

The scan quality on some of the pages is not good, and the same issue exists with the original source. Do you know of anyone that "cleans" truly awful scans..? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Also you've applied Edict-GovIndia to this? Can you explain why? as I would have in good faith have wondered if any copyright would in fact have now expired for something that old. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
@ShakespeareFan00: The work was not PD-India on URAA date, so EdictGov-India seemed the only option. As for scan quality, the file cannot be fixed. No copy present in the Digital Library of India. Entries for 1946 are not yet uploaded in the digital directory of the Gazette of India. So, for the time being, this file is un-fixable. Hrishikes (talk) 01:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, Worth asking soemone in Wikimedia India to lobby for India to sign up to OGL-equivalance? The current situation isn't in my view that dissimilar from the pre-OGL crown wavier, that existed in the UK. How did the relevant Indian Copyright Act in force in 1947 define Crown Copyright for official works? (The equivalent British term at the time as I understand it would have a been a 50 years after publication term.)
Copyright of this work was originally covered under Index:Indian Copyright Act 1914.djvu, being a New Delhi publication. Before expiry of copyright, the Act of 1957 came into force, and copyright can be deemed to have shifted to the purview of the new law. Before copyright expiry under the new law, the amendment of 1992 came into force. Therefore, finally, copyright was publication + 60. As for OGL and such, isn't that aspect covered by section 52 of the Indian Copyright Act (e.g. EdictGov-India template)? Hrishikes (talk) 02:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
OGL explicit allows for Derivative works (subject to accurate quoting), The Indian Wavier to me seems less clear on that. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 02:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Originals covered under 52-1-q; derivatives covered under 52-1-r. Hrishikes (talk) 02:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Index:A Collection of the Acts passed by the Governor General of India in Council, 1882 Vol 2.djvu‎[edit]

Found some missing pages? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: Fixed, to some extent. Hrishikes (talk) 16:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Index:Acts of the Parliament of India 1960.djvu=[edit]

Genuinely missing pages or is the large discrepancy a printers error (or better substitution of a differently numbered version from an external source?) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: Substituted from external source. No content is missing, I think. Hrishikes (talk) 13:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Index:Acts of the Parliament of India 1956.djvu[edit]

pp.664 apparently missing, Want to confirm? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: Fixed. Hrishikes (talk) 01:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Page:Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999.djvu/3[edit]

Can you check this is acceptable?

I'd not marked this as proofread because I felt it needed the indentation, However someone else disagreed, and marked it as proofread regardless.

The first 4 pages, now implement one of my preferred options for anchors in Legislation.

However, Other than tidying up my own contributions so that nothing breaks, I will back away, as I'm having further concerns about my ability to spot every single coding mistake. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: Indent required, as I did here and on next page. Pse check the sidenote styling too. Hrishikes (talk) 16:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I was using {{sidenotes begin}}{{sidenotes end}} because I was thought that;s how it was done? Anyway thanks. Is the indententation style documented? :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I generally stick to sidenotes begin/end, here I tried another style. Hrishikes (talk) 16:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Page:Trade Marks Act (India), 1999.djvu/2[edit]

Too many open windows, I added the rules in the header, Re-validate? Sorry. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

edit summary at template:new texts[edit]

As this displays straight onto the main page, we request that on this page that a good summary is used. It sets a good practice, and it also allows easier monitoring through watchlists, and IRC. I encourage the use of the wikilinked title of the added work as that gives everyone a good indication that it was a good link. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:31, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: I'll take care in future efforts. Hrishikes (talk) 00:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Indian Legislation[edit]

So a good nicely formatted version:

https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Page:Geographical_Indications_of_Goods_(Registration_and_Protection)_Act,_1999.djvu/2&diff=next&oldid=6691204

Get reverted (and seemingly validated) into a version that loosk like raw OCR?

I'm backing off as I don't understand this. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mahitgar: Please look into this. Hrishikes (talk) 11:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
@ShakespeareFan00: Seems to be taken care of. Hrishikes (talk) 12:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, bringing this to notice, @सुबोध कुलकर्णी: please bring this into notice of students & project co-ordinator during your tommorrows personal visit.
Taking this likely hood in to account we have asked college to form separate teams for proofreading a separate team for validation a separate team to study and guide others about style guide.
Besides we have told students about how to add pages in watch and watch the changes to them.
Besides today only I was discussing with @सुबोध कुलकर्णी: to bring in more law colleges so that even validated pages will be cross checked by students once again from a different college altogether. Like Page:Indian Copyright Act 1957.djvu/1 was validated even before project started so I asked student to still cross check every word and if every thing is clear then mention so on talk page and if any difference that too you mention on the talk page.
The third level of the cross check is expected when the students will compile an act along with amendments and take that to final level and cross check final with other may be sources such as Indian Income Tax department has a separate online repository of updated acts.
Still if you can share more ideas to avoid
Thanks and warm regards once again.
Mahitgar (talk) 12:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
@Mahitgar: Most pages in Index:Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999.djvu were in proofread or validated status while still having almost raw ocr. I have downgraded some pages. I think the concerned editors need some briefing about what constitutes proofreading and what is validation. Hrishikes (talk) 13:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes it seems so. Thanks for bringing this to our attention Mahitgar (talk) 13:42, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Index:Acts of the Parliament of India 1950.djvu[edit]

Please check around p 492 of the dvju, I've got an end page headed 'Army' that seems to be misplaced. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

And I've now found a page out of order as marked. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
@ShakespeareFan00: Fixed. Hrishikes (talk) 15:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

email[edit]

An email has been sent to you.

Regards

Mahitgar (talk) 15:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Index:Acts of the Constituent Assembly of India 1949.djvu[edit]

Found a possible stray duplicate as noted in the Pagelist.

I would strongly suggest asking the Wikiproject people to take a look at the raw scans as well as I am finding issues with some the earlier ones (1949 and 1950 so far)

Also the 1949 scans appear to have a LOT of hand written annotations (but I'm not sure when these were added) What' actually in the print appears to be the "Bill as passed" and not necessarily the Act as such.

Sorry to be a pain, but I hope you appreciate me checking these scans carefully. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: I think no content is missing. One page is duplicate, and lots of acts are in the bill form. Those bills must have been enacted later, as evident from the TOC. There are two sets of acts: one set by the Constituent Assembly (with assent of the President of the Assembly), the other set by the Dominion Legislature (with assent of the Governor General). I understand the desirability of having the acts instead of the bills. I'll see about this. Hrishikes (talk) 01:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
@ShakespeareFan00: I have updated the file, by substituting with as many Act versions as I could find. Pse recheck. Hrishikes (talk) 02:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Noted. But pages 5 and 7 will need to be realigned to be 4 and 5 respectively ( I transcribed these in good faith, before your re-aligned the file. Mediawiki won't let me as a non-administrator move these over the "blanks" that existed in the previous version.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:58, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Administrator[edit]

I was surprised to discover that you aren't an admin here. Is that something you'd be interested in? I haven't been around very long, but from what I've seen of your work I admire your commitment to this site and your quality contributions, so if you're interested I'd be willing to nominate you. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Beleg Tâl: I am unsure about this, because I have no experience in admin matters in any site. You can go ahead if you think it worthwhile after careful thinking. Hrishikes (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
It is okay; I had no experience either before I was nominated. It's a pretty simple gig; you just have to uphold policy and consensus, which you already do, and in return you get a bunch of useful tools that make editing easier. The actual policy is at Wikisource:Restricted access policy and more details are at Wikisource:Adminship. If you read those and are still interested, I'll create a nomination for you :) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: OK then, I'll do my best. Hrishikes (talk) 02:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
And the nomination is up. I wish you luck :) You can post on the nomination that you accept the nom, and then we'll see what happens! —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Hrishikes (talk) 15:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Index:Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999.djvu[edit]

Even though you reverted some of them they got marked as proofread/validated again :(.

There are some later pages in the work with the same issues, i.e. proofread or validated with minimal changes from the original OCR/PDF text extraction. (sigh).

I'm sorry I have to raise this, and given some recent concerns elsewhere about my accuracy level in respect of my own proofreading efforts, I am probably the last person that has any credibility, but minimal changes from an OCR or PDF extensions is NOT proofreading, let alone Validation. If you check the history for the first 4 pages it took me several edits to get it to a standard I felt was at least reasonable.

I'm sure that this is in no way indicative of the Wikiproject as whole, but I am considering removing my name from the supporting contributors list, if there isn't some kind of explanation. ( As you've probably read or heard from other sources, there have been concerns about my level of ability/competence more generally.) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:51, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: Why are you getting so serious? They are students only, and just learning their way around here. You can take up the issue with their project guides, listed in Wikisource:Internship project at New Law College, Pune. Hrishikes (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I am as usual probably over-reacting. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:40, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Index:Acts of the Parliament of India 2011.djvu[edit]

Can you confirm that I am seeing a Regulation as No 2 of of 2011, rather than an Act,

The relevant Central act is here : http://bombayhighcourt.nic.in/libweb/actc/yearwise/2011/2011.02.pdf if you wanted to patch the file. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: Fixed. Hrishikes (talk) 16:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm going to busy on something else for a the next few weeks, so thanks for fixing this. If you want to proofread check the uploads for other years, feel free. No hurry obviously though.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Link on my page[edit]

Thanks.. My thought was the book you found it in might be an earlier edition?

Mr W. Theobald would have been 72 in 1870. Thusly based on the preface in the 1868 edition, I'm confident about their being previous editions which presumably included earlier acts. Assuming the dates given Mr Theobald could have at the very least have been in active practice by the mid 1830's or so. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 01:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: It is a parallel version, avl. here. Hrishikes (talk) 01:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Index:Tales of Bengal (S. B. Banerjea).djvu[edit]

Do you author dates for this? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

No. Hrishikes (talk) 10:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
And it's not Author:Surendranath_Banerjea under a different name? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
That would be S. N., not S. B. Hrishikes (talk) 11:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Hmm - https://www.readanybook.com/ebook/tales-of-bengal-586 seem to think it might be the same person. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
@ShakespeareFan00: This site also shows the same info. I don't think this is reliable. Can u quote some authentic source? Hrishikes (talk) 11:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
No authentic source, sorry... So can't confirm it. Do we know any Wikisource people that have relevant Library Access? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
@ShakespeareFan00: He also wrote detective stories (see here), which is not much compatible with a political leader like Surendranath. If a superfamous guy like Surendranath engaged in fiction writing, that would be more generally known. Hrishikes (talk) 11:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
OK, sorry. Still need to track down the author dates though. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Index:Acts of the Parliament of India 2008.djvu[edit]

Pagelisted, but a minor concern about the blank sheets at the front which look an artefact of the scanning process? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:57, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Index:Acts of the Parliament of India 2009.djvu[edit]

This mentions a table of effects in the ToC, which doesn't seem to be in the scans? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:59, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Index:Acts of the Parliament of India 1997.djvu[edit]

Check file, found an enntire block out of order. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: I am not seeing any mis-order. But three pages are missing: 159, 160, 169. I'll look into it. What about the 2001 vol, still defective? Hrishikes (talk) 13:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
I've just re-checked 2001 and found no obvious issues.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:00, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
@ShakespeareFan00: Fixed the 1997 vol. Hrishikes (talk) 03:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Index:Acts of the Parliament of India 2007.djvu[edit]

Block of out of order pages?

@ShakespeareFan00: Fixed. Hrishikes (talk) 08:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

updated upto 1999).djvu[edit]

Hi, I could get better analytical ref article. I have written an email to the author on some legal point and the copy of the email is made cc to you.

After reading the said article it is more certain we shall need to nominate File:Indian Copyright Act, 1957 (updated upto 1999).djvu for deletion as already discussed in sriptorium discusssion.

Thanks for your continued support. And warm regards

Mahitgar (talk) 14:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mahitgar: OK. Another point. The link you sited draws attention to another aspect too. Clause (ii) of Section 52(1)(q) stipulates that Indian laws can be reproduced only subject to the condition that such Act is reproduced or published together with any commentary thereon or any other original matter. This means that bare acts are not allowed, addition of some original matter is mandatory. This can be taken care of by adding a commentary in the header note during transclusion; but this kind of license is not compatible with Wikimedia. If this interpretation is correct, this puts the Pune Law College project in jeopardy, isn't it? What is your take? Hrishikes (talk) 01:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


I hope you have further read discussion below the article with Mr. Prashant Iyengar. Mr. Prashant Iyengar reads this clause differently. He belives what the said clause means is what commentary (like inro statement side notes foot notes etc) is included in the act documents should be carried as is while reproducing. As many times I read the act I read it the same way Prashant Iyengar meant.(If that meaning is correct then no issues with wikisource project)

Now the meaning what Prof Dr Arul George Scaria has taken is when you republish an act you add a new commentary having original research. So what it means sentence can be read with two different meanings one gives fair dealing benefit as is, another meaning stops you short of fairdeal provision unless you add an original commentary to it. Now we read this with one recent delhi highcourt judgement : The Chancellor, Masters & ... vs Rameshwari Photocopy Services & ... on 9 December, 2016 where in point no 31 honourable court says "...It is true that there has to be fairness in every action, and irrespective of a statute expressly incorporating fair use, unless the legislative intent expressly excludes fair use, and especially when a person's result of labour is being utilized by somebody else, fair use must be read into the statute..." . If courts stick to this reasoning then they have to read fairdealing in the sentence we are discussing and not the way arround.

Article of Dr Arul George Scaria is written in 2015 and and court decesion I am citing is of recent origin i.e Dec 2016; So I have written an email to Dr Arul George Scaria to ascertain his view post this judgement. (I have shared that email with you) We will wait for his reply for couple of days.

As you say If still he holds his interpretation, certainly we avoid risk and that not only puts the Pune Law College project in jeopardy but wikisource wont be able to host any Indian Parliamentary acts. And in such eventuality we will nead to shift project to english wikiversity, wikiversity project allows for original research. As such we do not need to make original research I suppose copy pating en wikipedia articles will work as commentary.

Mahitgar (talk) 05:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

You could always ask Wikimedia India to lobby the Central Government to adopt something like the UK's Open Government License, (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/), I seem to recall one Indian State already having made a decision to migrate towards open access publishing of some of their (state) government documents.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

encyclopedic article[edit]

I feel there is scope for writing an encyclopedic article on the isssue since there are two Supreme court decesions also available to consider. I have started w:en:User:Mahitgar/Copyright provisions about government work in India You can me join building the article. I hope that will help the community in many ways.

Thanks and regards Mahitgar (talk) 08:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mahitgar: Please check my edit there. Copyright term was changed from 1941 by the 1992 amendment. I think court judgements should be cited from the website of the concerned court as much as possible. I have cited the EBC vs. Modak case likewise. Hrishikes (talk) 10:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
There is one supreme court judgemt Reed Elsevier Vs Easter Book Company TOI news article I could not get link to the judgement. Please see if you get the link.
Thanks & Rgds
Mahitgar (talk) 11:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
@Mahitgar: Not present in SC site. On payment downloadable here. Analysis here. Hrishikes (talk) 11:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
@Mahitgar: How are you determining the "publication years" column in your sandbox? It is not determined that way. Any work still copyrighted under the old act will come under the new act. Hrishikes (talk) 12:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I realy do not know how does it works out. under 1847 law which specifies authors life + 7 years. Suppose A book say published in 1910 author died in 2000. Is it not expected the copyright to last till 2007 . Am I going wrong in this calculation ?
Indian Copyright Law 1957 consolidated version section 79 subsection 5 reads as below
Except as otherwise provided in this Act, where any person is entitled immediately before commencement of this Act to copyright in any work or any right in such copyright or to an interest in any such right, he shall continue to be entitled to such right or interest for the period for which he would have been entitled thereto if this Act had not come into force.

So we seem to be reading some thing some where differently. Frankly I am curious how year 1941 is worked out by your goodselves.

Mahitgar (talk) 12:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
@Mahitgar: Except as otherwise provided in this Act is the key; it has been provided in the previous subsection, 79(4): Where copyright subsisted in any work immediately before the commencement of this Act, the rights comprising such copyright shall, as from the date of such commencement, be the rights specified in section 14 in relation to the class of works to which such work belongs. The 1992 amendment was specifically introduced to increase copyright of Tagore's works (this hugely profitable copyright belonged to the Vishwabharati University, which was under the Central Govt). Tagore died in 1941, so as per death + 50 years, copyright was to expire on December 31, 1991. So although passed on 3rd April, 1992, the amendment was retrospectively implemented from December 28, 1991, so that Tagore's works got covered, replacing the previously issued ordinance. Section 79(5) is for removing the negative connotation; that is, the new act will not deprive someone of copyright entitled under the old law; it does not mean that the new law cannot increase copyright. Hrishikes (talk) 13:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
@Mahitgar: Please also go through this parliamentary debate about how the 1992 amd. and previous ord. were brought into force to enhance the Tagore copyright. So the period for this amd. was from 1941. Hrishikes (talk) 13:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for this detailed information. Just for my curiosity I wanted to compare section 79(4) with 1957 gazett copy. You had given link to the gazett,(I searched but) It seems I lost it some where, I would like have it again if it is easily possible for you.
Mahitgar (talk) 14:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Got the link .thanks Mahitgar (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Well just for my curiosity -now I have a doubt- wording highlited by you of section 79(4) seems to be there from File:Gazette of India - Extraordinary - 1957 - Number 15.pdf 1957 itself, please correct me if I am going some where wrong. I am not getting exact which wording in Indian Copyright Act (3rd Amendment) 1992 is affecting it to be retrospective.
Mahitgar (talk) 14:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
@Mahitgar: 1992 amd. was not retrospective from 1941. It was retrospective from December 1991 [(section 1(2)]. Any work under copyright protection in December 1991 came under the purview of the 1992 amd. Hrishikes (talk) 14:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Now getting it. For one) I will need to reformat the table in my sandbox to take this into account. 2) Details regarding Tagore's works are interesting to be included in the article we are working on.
Thanks this discussion I learned something unknown and fascinating. Thanks and warm regards
Mahitgar (talk) 14:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Public domain[edit]

Just for info.

My personal observation has been that, the wording "Puublic domain" seems to have been used by Indian courts incl Supreme court with different shades of meaning in different context in different cases. Some point of time we will need to write an essay on this on wikiversity or some thing (because no one else might have anlysed this issue uptil now)

Mahitgar (talk) 11:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I have already noticed it. The courts are using the term in the meaning equivalent to a CC license. Hrishikes (talk) 12:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Adminship[edit]

I don't know whether you've noticed, but you've been nominated for admin at Wikisource:Administrators. Custom would be that you formally accept the nomination, even though this is not explicitly written in our procedures. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Hrishikes (talk) 08:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


Hi Hrishikes,

I have closed your admin nomination as successful, and granted you the bit. Enjoy the extra responsibility!

Can I ask you please to update the table at Wikisource:Administrators#Current administrators with any other languages or access that you have.

Hesperian 04:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Hrishikes (talk) 05:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Escape codes in JUDIS[edit]

Since you're knowledgeable on Indian legal documents—do you know what protocol is used for the escape codes in JUDIS documents? See Index talk:Eastern Book Company & Ors vs D.B. Modak & Anr.pdf for a discussion. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@Beleg Tâl: The judgements were originally typed on a typewriter, and then the judges signed. That exact format is maintained in the court site, and the unavailable characters were indicated by codes; that is my take. Discussed in detail in the index talk page. Hrishikes (talk) 04:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Checkpages : Index:Acts of the Parliament of India 1978.djvu[edit]

pp. 275, 276 appear to be absent, but I am not seeing an obvious absence in any text. Would you mind confirming this? Thanks. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: Checked Act 33 here; no content missing. Hrishikes (talk) 15:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Help needed for a couple of missing pages[edit]

Hi, Index:Reminisences of Captain Gronow.djvu has got a couple of missing pages and the file I used is the only copy on IA. However, I see that HathiTrust has 3 copies [1]. I know you've managed to acquire texts from HathiTrust in the past. If you have time, could you please have a look? I don't mind if we do a replacement file or an interpolation of the pages. TIA, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Beeswaxcandle: Yes check.svg Done Hrishikes (talk) 02:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

IP address blocks[edit]

A quote from Billinghurst on my Talk archives (2012): "When blocking IP addresses, it is better to err on the shorter side. Globally we generally try to not block for more than one year (after research), and often shorter. If someone has a dynamic IP address, they generally will not come back to the same IP address, so the block is next to useless; if they are on a static IP address either home or via a server or prxoy, then I would much prefer to look to manage that in the longer term globally." Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@Beeswaxcandle: Shortened the tenure. Hrishikes (talk) 07:03, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Handy tip when moving pages[edit]

Hi, now that you're an admin you've got an extra tick-box available when you move a page. Underneath the reason, the first tick-box is "Leave a redirect behind". If you click that off, you'll suppress the redirect at the same time as moving the page. Saves a bit of time. I turn it off for most moves except in the Author namespace. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@Beeswaxcandle: Yes, I knew it, but inadvertently forgot to tick it. Hrishikes (talk) 06:45, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

TOC problems[edit]

Page:Indian_Shipping,_a_history_of_the_sea-borne_trade_and_maritime_activity_of_the_Indians_from_the_earliest_times.djvu/25

Beyond my competence, have you contacted the person that wrote TOCstyle? I am thinking someone's using an incompatible template.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Indefinite blocks are not a good idea[edit]

Hi. In my experience indefinite blocks are problematic. IP blocks shift ownership, so it is generally recommended to step up block lengths, even put in lengthy blocks, but not indefinite. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, I did it because it was the 3rd block for the same address. Hrishikes (talk) 11:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Problem in a page ?[edit]

is this ok ? All the best, --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's a duplicate. Hrishikes (talk) 00:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Invisible Man[edit]

The link you added was not the 1897 edition, but a much later one. You can tell because (1) it had a "copyright date" instead of a publication date, and (2) it was offering books for purchase that had not yet been published in 1897. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: It was not much later; it was the 1898 edition; see here: http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?620015 Hrishikes (talk) 02:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
It had to be later than that, based on the list of works included. And it's still a different edition. Each publisher makes their own editorial alterations to texts. Claiming one edition is another edition misleads the reader. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: I was not intentionally misleading the reader, please do not make this kind of insinuations. The work was undated in online view; copyright date was given as 1897. Date given as 1897 by the website: 1. So I had given it. However, the Harper edition is of 1898 (reprint may be later). All editions listed here: http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?29172. But of course, it is a later reprint, taking in view the advertisement page, which I had overlooked. But that was not intentional. I always try to work sincerely and have no intention of misleading the reader.
P.S. the Harper edition was originally published in March 1898, as mentioned in the 1957 Pocket Book reprint of that edition: see page 6 at https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/101672756 Hrishikes (talk) 02:23, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Original dates of "editions" aren't always illuminating. The "Third Folio" of Shakespeare is a classic example, where the second printing of the "Third" folio edition included seven plays that weren't present in the first print run. It also included false dates on plays, some of which had actually been written after Shakespeare's death. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Uploads[edit]

That user is the same one who has been switching account names and then uploading more copyvio videos. His new accounts can be perma-blocked. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

OK. Hrishikes (talk) 18:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Sarah Bernhardt[edit]

Hello! I was wondering if you knew that the text of the two Sarah Bernhardt memoirs seems to be the same, but with slightly different chapter titling, etc. Many, if not all of the illustrations are also the same (different order). Did you find significant difference between the two works? I found some missing text in My Double Life, and it is overall pretty rough. I was looking to find a reference to when Bernhardt played Hamlet ca. 1899 in Paris, which is how I came to discover the similarities. Londonjackbooks (talk) 08:54, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Londonjackbooks: I had missed it, thanks for pointing it out. Those two are the same book, alternative titles, as mentioned here. The Hamlet reference, with photo, is here. Hrishikes (talk) 10:11, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the link! I was hoping to find a mention in her memoir in her own words, but did not find one. Appreciated! Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:25, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
@Londonjackbooks: The Hamlet ref in the book is here. I don't know if there is any other. Hrishikes (talk) 11:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes. I believe there is one other page that references "Hamlet", but with no mention of her in the role. Thanks again :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Poetic works recently added...[edit]

Would you consider doing the pagelists? I tried to read the (Begnali?) numerals used and found that in the scans they were indistinct in places, meaning I wasn't confident about decoding them. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: Yes check.svg Done -- Hrishikes (talk) 00:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Spam deletions[edit]

Hello! The last 3 deletions of User account pages [2] seem to be from the same person using different account names. Is there a way to block an originating address? I don't know how all that works. Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@Londonjackbooks: Yes, checkusers can check them and then something can be done, I believe. @Billinghurst: would be more knowledgeable. Hrishikes (talk) 00:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
@Londonjackbooks: The WMF CU policy indicates that the "community" indicates for a check to be undertaken; and for spam it would be sufficient to make a note at WS:AN that you are going to request it, or are requesting it [I would do it with a permalink to a request at m:SRCU.] If it was a request for a real user, we probably want some agreement of fellow admins that we want it done. On a request you would ask for a common IP address or IP range to be blocked if possible.

Note about spam from spambots, while they can be the same spam, they can be from various IP ranges, though we won't know until a check has been done; nothing wrong with requesting and find that different. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, @Billinghurst:. It appears to me that at least 4 or 5 accounts today may be related. As usual, I am reticent to act other than to delete obvious spam User pages. I'll consider your guidance and have copied it for future reference. Thanks both, Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Trishasti-Shalaka-Purusa-Caritra-1[edit]

This book may be deleted as I am doubtful about its copyright. Thanks. --Sushant savla (talk) 16:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Looks like Commons has come to the same conclusion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:03, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources[edit]

We have never required that sources be on-line. Please read the text from {{no source}} (emphasis added):

In this case, "source" means a place where a contributor new to the work can find a reliable copy of the work. Generally this is a URL.

A source does not have to be a URL; it is a place where a reliable copy can be located. This may mean the original location of publication. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: Where are you getting "generally" in bold? It is not there in the template text. Template text gives two options for source: scanned copy and url. If neither is available, no-source is applicable and the matter should be explained on talk page. Only mentioning the name of a newspaper is not source, where is the verification that this exact text was published in that paper? The template text does not dwell on any idea of a hard copy. Scanned copy or url, without any mention of hard copy, means that the whole concept of the template text is centered on digital copy only. The source needs to point the reader to a location. Location is not a magazine, a magazine is a document, location is the place where that document is found. No location is given, so the work has no source. And instead of this continuous game of reversion, you should have waited for sorting it through discussion. Hrishikes (talk) 18:18, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
It's on the template page as part of the template documentation. Have you not read the documentation yet? The text displayed by the template is a short summary, not the policy. And instead of this continuous game of reversion, you should have waited for sorting it through discussion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Please also read the final paragraph on Help:Beginner's guide to sources#What about works without scans? which describes for users how to add works for which there are no scans or on-line copies available. I do not understand your need to add extra rules for which there is neither policy nor even a guideline on Wikisource. You can make a proposal if you like, but I doubt the community would adopt such Draconian limitations. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: My reply is as under:
  1. It was you who started the reversions without discussion, not I.
  2. I have no reason to propose change of policy, it is you whose point is not envisaged by policy, as explained below.
  3. I have read the template documentation. The word generally in the documentation (and preferably in template text) describe the method of giving source; but the definition of source is given in the previous line: In this case, "source" means a place where a contributor new to the work can find a reliable copy of the work. Here the work is not Douglass's letter itself, that being an extraction from a magazine. The magazine itself is the full work. So a place (or location as per template text) is required, where other users can find a copy of this work.
  4. No such place or location is mentioned in this case. Only mentioning the parent work is not equivalent to giving source.
  5. If giving such a place/location is not possible, the template says: please explain on the talk page. What explanation? That is clarified in What about works without scans? at Help:Beginner's guide to sources that you have cited. Alternative way to get the work is only two: from a hard copy of the original work in some library or such, as explained there, or, from a later compilation (not mentioned there). In such a case, your citation explains: in the textinfo template, add a note to explain the situation to readers. That is the explanation envisaged in the no-source template.
  6. No such explanation has been given on the talk page or header note: whether the piece is from a hard copy of the work, or from a later compilation. Only the parent work has been mentioned.
  7. No-source template does not mean that the article should be deleted; it is just an impetus to others to find the source. Instead of removing the template by unilateral discussion-less action, you could have taken some effort to locate a source. The template is meant for that only.
  8. Wikipedia ensures verifiability by references, Wikisource does it by scans or citing urls. Where that is lacking, the no-source template has the role to inform any random visitor that a source is required, so that someone may be able to take action.
  9. If you want to prove that mentioning the parent work of an extracted piece is equivalent to giving source, the onus is on you to provide documentation or to take community endorsement.

Hrishikes (talk) 04:11, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

As you seem to have a peculiar stance about the plain English terminology used in the documentation, let's ask the community for clarification. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Author:Gurajada Apparao[edit]

The complete works of this author is uploaded to Wikicommons. See: File:Gurujadalu.pdf. Can we create an Index page for Index:Gurujadalu.pdf and work on his English language works. Please clarify, to start working on it.--Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 05:39, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

@Rajasekhar1961: the Telugu pages can be marked as Te (like this index) and English pages numbered and proofread. But this is a 2012 work, the editorial components would be copyrighted. Hrishikes (talk) 06:15, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the prompt response. I would follow your instructions. If I make any mistake, kindly correct me. Editorials would not be taken.--Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 06:21, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
@Rajasekhar1961: The file should be re-uploaded after removing editorial components, like this one. The false date in Commons should also be corrected accordingly, in the manner of the file cited. The English works, if originally published separately, can also be extracted and uploaded separately, like the works under this author. Hrishikes (talk) 06:51, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
I do not know how to do it. (I do not have the original file with me) Can you help in this matter; I will be grateful to you. Thanks.--Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 07:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
@Rajasekhar1961: Original file is this one. What exactly do you want:
  1. Removal of front matter and re-upload by overwriting existing pdf
  2. Removal of front matter and upload as separate file
  3. Removal of front matter + anything additional (back matter, footnotes etc.)
  4. Removal of front matter + Telugu pages and upload of English pages only
  5. Upload in some other way.
Please give pointers. Hrishikes (talk) 08:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
@Rajasekhar1961: c:File:Gurujadalu English.djvu. Hrishikes (talk) 09:09, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much sir. I understand that you have removed the copywrighted part and Telugu pages. Can I change the name of Index file.--Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 10:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
@Rajasekhar1961: Index should be named as per file. If you want a different file name, say so. Hrishikes (talk) 12:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
The page numbers are not matching completely in the index Index:Gurujadalu English.djvu page.--Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 13:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
@Rajasekhar1961: Please elaborate. Hrishikes (talk) 14:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Convocation addresses[edit]

Convocation addresses of Bombay and Madras Universities delivered by various distinguished persons are available in Archives. See the link: [[3]] They are compiled by K. Subba Rau and published in 1892. Are they copywright free and be added in English Wikisource.--Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 12:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

@Rajasekhar1961: Yes, it's ok, being pre-1923. Hrishikes (talk) 12:28, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
@Rajasekhar1961: When uploading books from Internet Archive, you don't need to download the work. You can use this tool. From other sites to Commons, this tool can be used. Hrishikes (talk) 16:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
I am not able to upload it from this link. It is reporting some error. Kindly help.--Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 11:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
@Rajasekhar1961: Which of the two tools and what kind of error? Hrishikes (talk) 11:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
The first IA tool. It is saying wrong file id.Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 11:47, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
@Rajasekhar1961: As id, you need to pick the last portion of the web address (if the address is https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.38881 in.ernet.dli.2015.38881 will be the id). If a file is already in Commons from the same address, IA upload will refuse another upload. Hrishikes (talk) 11:52, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I have uploaded successfully. What is difference between the two methods.--Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 12:06, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
One is for IA only, the other for any site. The first can also do djvu conversion if djvu is not present in IA. Hrishikes (talk) 12:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much sir.Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 12:12, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Hrishikes , Any chance of figuring out who the named address givers are in terms of dates and Wikidata? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
@ShakespeareFan00: That's relatively easy; ask Uncle Google. For example, the first four are: w:Henry Bartle Frere, w:Sir Alexander Grant, 10th Baronet, w:William Vesey-FitzGerald, w:John Wilson (missionary). Hrishikes (talk) 14:47, 17 October 2017 (UTC)