User talk:Prosfilaes/Archive

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Hello, 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:

Please consider putting a brief description of yourself on your user page. If you are already a contributor to another Wikimedia project, such as Wikipedia, please mention this on your user page so we know how to contact you. Also, mention which languages you understand if English is not your first language.

In any case, I hope you enjoy donating your time to grow the Wikisource 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! John Vandenberg (chat) 01:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have set up a transcription project Index:American Poetry 1922.djvu; the text for each page can probably be easily found on the net. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, we would love it. The way we do transcription projects is each page of text is added beside the image. For example, go to "Page:American Poetry 1922.djvu/17" , and add the text of Author:Amy Lowells Lilacs. At the top of each page are buttons that navigate to the previous and next pages. While you do that, I will show you how to join the pages together so the reader can see it all on a single page. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it is because at the end of each line, there are a number of tabs, or spaces, or something strange. I am finding the easiest way to fix it is to go to the last character of the line, and then press shift+end then delete. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, American Poetry 1922 and Lilacs (Lowell) have been set up. There are some minor line spacing issues with Lilacs (Lowell); dont be too worried about them, as the "poem" presentation software is being improved. I'll hassle the developer about it to see what further adjustments are required.

I need to head to bed now, but will check your progress tomorrow and help out if you have any queries. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: To Roosevelt[edit]

I hope I did this correctly, but I release my translation into Public Domain.

Thanks for notifying me about the need.

The article: [1]

Re: Paradise Lost[edit]

Thanks for the link and kind note! I had forgotten about the Google Books option. That will help me with my copyediting.

Thanks again!

WordyGirl90 (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Marian Edwardes[edit]

From a quick look-see. The Marian of interest is active in the 1900-1910 period, looks to be UK (advertisement The times 1901). I can see:

  • Marian b.1853 in London, daughter of David and Lydia. Father was MD. Nothing evident in a career-sense, though translation would not necessarily show up. Mother died 1894, so would seem likely that time to strike out and do something and help financially. Also looks to be publication in 1929. Death records after that are available but a bloody nuisance to peruse.
  • Marian b.c1872 (married name) and occupation in 1901 does not seem to be academic, remarried 1904.

-- billinghurst (talk) 04:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Obama Executive Order[edit]

Why did you remove Obama's Executive Order list from the list of US Executive Orders; those of 6 other presidents already have that label, and doesn't it make sense to have all American Presidential Executive orders in one place? Shouldn't not only the Obama listing, but all of the the orders themselves be in that category? Maybe there's something I'm missing- I am fairly new to this, so I thought I'd ask... --Bleemsz (talk) 22:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Three Stories and Ten Poems[edit]

Moved your post to Wikisource:Possible_copyright_violations#Three_Stories_and_Ten_Poems, Jeepday (talk) 23:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that you asked for this. (If not, then I am a doofus) Viola! You may wish to go and section-ise if you are wishing to call up component. :-) -- billinghurst (talk) 12:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Slanderous edits[edit]

Please see this message, this edit, etc. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here's the thing; I don't really care. I don't understand the point of the Wikisource Bible translation, and would expect that if it is to be successful, there would have to be a strong team keeping it together. Fixing things like this would be the job of that team who knows that's good and bad for their translation. My only concern is the set of pages from The Sources for Genesis.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What language would you propose for this policy to clarify what variation of "English" are accepted here? I would like to make a proposal with several options for people to discuss instead of the current straw poll. But I am not sure I can succeed at drafting something for your position. Please feel free to suggest several drafts if you like. I am planning on showing a range of options to discuss.--BirgitteSB 17:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unfortunately I am not finding the time to follow through with this right now. My main co-worker started maternity leave this week and I am just swamped. I don't think that we need different proposals if someone else wants to take charge on getting the policy clarified. It was just how I planned to do it, mainly because I am aware of my own strong preference on the issue.--BirgitteSB 13:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank You[edit]

Thank you for fixing the wording on the "Journal of Major Andre" page so it now links to his author's page. It was an enormous help.

Also, thank you for filling me on what was going on with Jonah Musto Sr. That really worried me for awhile. Good thing he's blocked now. Some people just think they can do whatever they want.

Request for opinion[edit]


Could you cast your eye over Wikisource:Possible_copyright_violations#Sir_Gerald_Kaufman's_15.01.2009_speech_on_Gaza_Strike_at_House_of_Commons for me? I'm not really sure what should be done in this situation. There seems to be debate about whether or not Gerald Kaufman owns the copyright to the speech or not, and I'm not really very sure in matters of UK work-for-hire laws. (The release is not complete enough, but if he doesn't own the copyright, then there's no point discussing the release at the minute.) Jude (talk) 00:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Gday. Not sure whether you have seen the {{Copyright-until}} template or not. Sometimes I will use that template rather than a reversion to cover issues where people have added work. It becomes more about a modification, than a removal. -- billinghurst (talk) 14:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright search[edit]

Could you pop past User talk:Ansicpl look at the discussion about Propaganda and see if you can assist with the question of whether it is copyright or not. You are far better at that than I. Thanks. -- billinghurst (talk) 01:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi. I'd like to nominate you for adminship, if you will accept. I believe your having the tools will be a boon to the community, especially in regards to matters of copyright. Jude (talk) 08:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tapped on the shoulder![edit]

Due and I have done you in at Wikisource:Administrators#User:Prosfilaes If you are willing to be conscripted, your thumbprint by your nomination would be much appreciated. Regards. billinghurst (talk) 09:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You now have a the sysop flag. Congratulations!--BirgitteSB 18:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I'm sure a clear headed administrator will eventually note that the speech was publicly released, per the talk page, and thus you haven't got a leg to stand on, but I'll continue waiting for that day to come. Why you are incapable of realizing this yourself completely perplexes me. -- Kendrick7 (talk) 00:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow[edit]

Dear Prosfilaes, I myself am not certain about the copyright on the works of Joseph Stalin. Under the new retroactive Russian copyright law, the Russian and/or Georgian originals would not be under copyright since he died in 1953. However, if he is considered a veteran of the Great Patriotic War, the originals would still be under copyright. As for the English translations, they would likely still be under copyright, but, according to the Marxists Internet Archive, all Soviet works published prior to 1973 are public domain (the website providing this information is here. Any help? Sincerely yours, Graeculus

P.S. The link does not take you directly where you would need to go. The path is How we function > Bourgeois Legal Information: Copyright Law.

Author:Nezāmi-ye Ganjavī[edit]

On recent change patrol, found this seems like you two need to talk. Jeepday (talk) 23:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You seem to have your head around the request and edit of [2], whereas I would have to start from scratch. Not sure that the edit has been fully comprehended. Thx. -- billinghurst (talk) 03:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: new translations categories[edit]

The new categories are fine. Aren't proposed deletions supposed to be accompanied by notification to the person who created the files? This would have kept me up to date. Thanks for being ambitious enough to expand the scope to all of Wikisource. I have thought of several options for implementing the translations. Those and the EB1911 discussion can be found at Wikisource talk:WikiProject 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Style Manual#English translations of Latin, Greek and French, for what they're worth. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 15:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Prosfilaes. I'm sorry about my clutzy removal of the copyvio tag on this article last week - I edit at Wikipedia and am unfamiliar with Wikisource. I thought you should know that our investigations there show that East-West dichotomy is a self-published web book and not a dissertation. The author and sockpuppets have been persistent in adding references to it in Wikipedia. You may wish to look at our Afd discussion of the author and sockpuppet investigation. He has returned again, now claiming copyright violations. Our latest results here still show the work is only self-published. I would not doubt that the uploader here is probably closely related, if not the author. Anyway, I thought it best to give you the information we have and let you handle this over here as you see fit. Cheers. CactusWriter (talk) 10:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hm. To be honest, there isn't really any indication one way or the other regarding the book. The "evidence" is actually evidence indicating that the author and/or the book do not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines; I'm still inclined to stand by my comments at the copyright violations discussion page. If new evidence comes to light indicating that it definitely is self-published, obviously I think we should open a deletion discussion. Jude (talk) 23:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Matto Grosso[edit]

What is Matto Grosso? It doesn't look like a text, so it probably shouldn't be in the main section.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It is the same place spelled two different ways due to ~whatever~. If one looks it up on Wikipedia it will be found spelled Mato Grosso, meaning "thick woods". It is one of the states of Brazil,located in the western part of the country. It is the third largest state in area in Brazil (aka Brasil) which is huge in size. Teddy Roosevelt wrote about Matto Grosso and I don't think Theodore was too ignorant with his spelling but perhaps he was? —Brother OfficerTalk 00:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi Prosfilaes. I am perplexed by some of the statements on copyright, though I believe I am familiar with some of the legislation. My interest in this is historical, though I try to keep abreast of the relevant precedents. As M R James passed away some 73 years ago, the basis of my tacit endorsement of the recent uploads, what is the clause you are propounding that contradicts this view? Cygnis insignis (talk) 10:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm still struggling to follow this, but a thought occurred to me; can you confirm that you are aware he is lived, wrote, and published in England. Cygnis insignis (talk) 20:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. It's not relevant in this case.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I thought you would have noticed this, you may want to take a look, a series of uploads were also discussed on the account's talk page. Cygnis insignis (talk) 03:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you check if a text is in the public domain for me?[edit]

Prosfilaes, can you tell me if the following text is in the public domain? I am really concern it isn't. Here it is. We would like to add this text for the WS:CotW. Please leave me a message on my talk page with what you find. I was told you were quite the expert in these matters. Thanks. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 06:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kipling stuff[edit]

You are more around this stuff than I

If they are to stay, I am happy to style them. -- billinghurst (talk) 06:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

redirect edit[edit]

What is this the purpose of this edit? Cygnis insignis (talk) 18:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If a page is created and then turned into a redirect, I can't patrol it; any attempt to get to a page where I could click "Patrol this page" will redirect me to the new page. So I break the redirect, mark it patrolled, and then redo the redirect.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ta. The documentation was vague the last time I looked. Do I need to mark the contribution as 'patrolled', even after I edit the page, to avoid it being flagged? Cygnis insignis (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Editing a page doesn't automatically patrol the previous edits on it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This looks problematic, and I have left a note on the Talk page. We may need to follow up with the editor. -- billinghurst (talk) 21:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thanks for your help proofing this wonderful little pamphlet :D Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Thomas Carlyle. 01:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thanks for the group membership thingy. Jafeluv (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you![edit]

Thank you for deleting Alexandra Uteev Johnson, which I was about to list for "speedy deletion." As you obviously understood, I intended the article to be titled Author:Alexandra Uteev Johnson, but mistakenly left off the "Author" component of the title. Although I don't have time right now to scale back the real "Author" article, I'll try to comply with your request to move the detailed content to Wikipedia as soon as I can. -- LegalBeagle (talk) 00:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is that your best profile?[edit]

Surely we could have had one of you looking to camera! Or with a book. billinghurst (talk) 21:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

US patents and copyright[edit]

Gday. Would you mind looking at Mother's 3rd Arm and enlightening me whether they are in the public domain or otherwise for being a patent. billinghurst (talk) 13:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know what that is. The text of the patent is PD, but that's here (if that doesn't work, you can go here and search for patent number 5823486). There's nothing literary there; it's a mind-numbing jumble of patentese, that doesn't mention twins or any of the other story elements our page has. Of that text, I'd say source unknown, copyright status unknown, and very unlikely to be in scope.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not sure whether it is an edict of government when head of state speaks. What are your thoughts? -- billinghurst (talk) 16:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think it's an edict, but I do think it falls under Crown Copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I've seen some interesting solutions to displaying parallel texts, let me know if you want some examples. I would be interested in your view on a separate issue that I have been considering, our ongoing translation projects and the potential for copyright infringement. Cygnis insignis (talk) 06:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I responded to your comment, you appear to have bought into an unfounded accusation. I'm unlikely to lose much sleep over what you imagined of me, but it would serve the community well if you defused the situation. Please amend your comments on what another another chose to perceive as a threat. Cygnis insignis (talk) 06:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I replied again. Cygnis insignis (talk) 12:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seeking your feedback, if time permits[edit]

I have compiled a list of scans of publications of the Scottish Record Society available at I have sorted through the files, and dug out their published dates. The pre1923 are okay, though after that they may be problematic, though being indexes they may not be a problem, of course depending on the amount artistic input further in. From your vast knowledge, I would like your thoughts on which of the post1923 we may be able to inhale into Commons for here. Thanks. billinghurst sDrewth 16:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know of no court case on the copyright of edited texts. These are old enough that the copyright of the original author should be a moot case, so if you think you can get an accurate transcription of what they wrote, free of editorial entanglement, then you could copy it. However, that's not trivial and I can imagine a court case involving intricate discussion of creative expansions of abbreviations and breaking of text in paragraphs and what not. With some of the material, like "Registers of the Burgesses of the Burgh of the Canongate", it may be an index, and the people and dates would be facts in the public domain, but if the occupations were added by the modern editor, I'm pretty sure they would qualify for copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AN post, update[edit]

Hi Prosfilaes, I hope you are doing well. Please see an update, at Wikisource:Administrator's_noticeboard#User:Wild_Wolf. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unfair block[edit]

Dear Prosfilaes – I have become fairly active on the Wikisource:Possible copyright violations ‎ discussion page in recent times. You are probably familiar with some of the issues I have raised there (including what is meant by an “Edict of Government”). On 2 May 2010 I made a number of edits. Most of these edits related to me “tagging, hiding and listing for discussion” works that were labeled as “Edicts of Government” (e.g. South African political speeches, a national anthem and other works). The same day Administrator Billinghurst blocked me. I cannot say precisely why – as he did not give precise reasons – but the general heading he gave was that “Okay, that is too rampant” (i.e. I was being too active in ““tagging, hiding and listing for discussion”).

I have disagreed with Billinghurst on a number of copyright points of late – basically, I would like the same standard to be applied to all works. The same high standard that is – even if that means that a lot of works need to be listed for discussion etc - but his approach is different. I think Billinghurst views me as ‘trouble’. In contrast, I think I have made a worthwhile contribution, prompting interesting discussions, greater clarity and the removal of some works. Indeed, the works I “tagged, hid and listed for discussion” on 2 May 2010 have led to interesting copyright discussions on the copyright violations discussion page. I would like Billinghurst to apologise for blocking me and somehow “expunge” my record.

I would appreciate any contribution you would like to make on my talk page where my block is being discussed. I am sending this message to all persons who have participated on the same copyright violation discussions as me. I do not know how else to generate further participation in the discussion concerning my block save direct messages – as I cannot list this matter (a personal one) on the copyright violations page. The discussion is at User talk:Formosa. Given my treatment, I admit to feeling a bit disheartened about my continuing involvement in the copyright violations project. Thanks. Formosa (talk) 13:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thanks for fixing that header, but I get a routine going and need to wipe the path clear. Btw, that scan for hbty was perfect, showing the full context, I credited you in the upload to commons. Cygnis insignis (talk) 05:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

new message[edit]

[moved from user page]

Sorry to be so thick. Do you mean my work is not acceptable to any Wiki cateory. My page is on Wikisource because I was advised to put it there by one of your fellow editors. I have made it perfectly clear what my work is through my website. If it is unacceptable say so. Terence Kearey


"We need more details on the translations. We need to know who did them, why they're in the public domain or what license they're under, and what editions they were translated from."

I did the translation, I mean to publish it, and till I don't find any editor they are in the public domain-and I will never get them out from here (except under the menace of a revolver), I prefer it to be reproduced with my name or pseudonym, but I think I cannot do anything in this sense, so I :let these verses in the public domain.
They are translated from the French edition, called "Les Rubaïyat" and the name of the original translator isn't mentioned in it.

Are your wishes contented? Have a nice day,

--El Translatore (talk) 18:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All this needs to go on the translation page. Also when was the French translation published? If it wasn't published prior to 1923, then it's probably not in the public domain in the US, and therefore we can't host it or derivative works of it, like translations.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is very disagreeable to me, to say that the French edition was first published in 1978. In Europe, if the author died before 1940 all his works belong to the public domain, even the things he wrote or the films and photographs he or she made after 1923. The American rule is far much strict on this point, unfortunately. You must know that I made this translation with the idea to share something with all the members of this big club that is earth; I wished to accomplish the best, and by no means it appeared to my mind to do something against some law or anything of that kind. If this translation, that I have made, with the help of different sources but clearly based on that French edition, keeps being here, what can ever occur? I mean: there is no law against it, is there?
think I believed too much in the idea of the free system, of the greatness of culture; of its expansion, of its quality made to be shared, in a lot of ideas which are limited by laws that protect some people, from the ravaging pillage of a lot of culture and knowledge-hungry men and women.

I hope that thou will have a nice day,

--El Translatore (talk) 17:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

biblioþēce books[edit]

Yes, as indicated in the Biblioþēce page, they are modern translations (which, you guessed, I myself did). I translated them from a Zondervan edition of the Greek New Testament. I do have access to the original Anglo-Saxon versions for some other books, more of which I'll be putting up (see this website); unfortunately some of these don't have an ideal space-saving layout, and sometimes have additional commentaries not with the original, so that'll take me some work to process. Gott wisst (talk) 06:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Robert Elise translations[edit]

Hello, The_Student_back_Home I have written to Elise to get permissions on the translations. he has already given me permission to use many of his works. thanks Mdupont (talk) 08:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


To permissions-commons[image: -at-] I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORK [**]. I agree to publish that work under the free license [*PD-Self (all rights released)*]

I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs, as long as they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me. I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. [ *24 December 2010, Robert Elsie* ]

I have undeleted The Student Back Home following conversation in IRC, but I just want to check that this email was actually sent to OTRS, rather than being a proposed email, before I do the rest. There is a bit of formatting to do too, so I'll do them when I have more time (and when I am sure OTRS actually is pending!). Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 23:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I cannot find such an email in OTRS. Jcb (talk) 09:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I've left you a message here, at Meta. Wōdenhelm (talk) 10:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your comment about "The poems of Gaius . . . (Cornish)"[edit]

Reference your comment on Scriptorium about the disambiguation name: Good point, I normally pipe it to remove the "(Cornish)" the displayed name, but didn't do that above. Do you think it should be renamed or just consistently piped.--Doug.(talk contribs) 07:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not a big deal, but I'd label it (Francis Cornish) or the like. Piping doesn't change the basic issue for me.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm backend access[edit]

Beeswaxcandle (talkcontribs) has been looking to do some match and splits and having information on the {{Gutenberg}} texts would be really useful. How much can we bother you as we look to work through getting scans to match texts. Or is there a chance that for the Gutenberg texts that we have acquired that we could slowly add provenance details to them? — billinghurst sDrewth 01:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, toss them at me and I tell you when it's too much. I can probably only help on ones that are labeled from Distributed Proofreaders.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Prosfilaes,

the image in this work is up for deletion due to a lack of a source. You added the {{PD-US-no renewal}} to the work, so I am thinking that can be applied to the image as well. Is there a source you are aware of that verifies this PD claim? Or, even better, a scan or something? Thank you. - Theornamentalist (talk) 23:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's copied from a Project Gutenberg source.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not that I doubt you (I'm looking here, but where does it specify that it is not renewed? I want to add it to the talk page. - Theornamentalist (talk) 00:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Point of procedure[edit]

FYI - Vote on point of procedure. Green Cardamom (talk) 14:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Asking on the off chance that you can find out behind the scenes whether the text version at PG (and now here) is the same edition/version that is the attached Index: file. If you can, that would be great. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry. The title page and verso for something from 1996 was probably snail-mailed in, and there certainly no scans online that I can check.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletion of Michael D. Higgins speeches[edit]

I really, really, really would have appreciated it if you had not deleted the hours and hours of work I put into those Michael D. Higgins documents I created before giving me a chance to download copies of them. I took the raw transcripts and performed hours of work correcting the inaccurate transcripts against actual verbatim recordings. Then I embedded many links and translations of passages in Irish. It was a considerable amount of very dogged work and I did not keep copies of my work because they were filed on the Wikisource servers — before you summarily deleted it all.

Before I performed my work, I troubled myself to e-mail the Irish government to inquire about the copyright status of the speeches and the official reply was that as they "are a matter of public record there is no copyright attached to them." I will contact the Irish government once again to confirm this now that their word has been challenged by you — without discussion! I could have told you this in advance of your intended action.

I do not see that the three works were listed for discussion or appraisal at Wikisource:Possible copyright violations or that a delay of two weeks was allowed, as mandated, by Wikisource:Possible copyright violations. You really jumped the gun and I am completely screwed without copies of my texts. I cannot begin to express my exasperation and anger at your peremptory action without swearing loudly in your face.

In the meantime, I need copies of my work on those three Higgins speeches for myself. Can you dig the sources out of the deleted files archive or whatever it is so I can have copies of the work I created?

I really am very annoyed that you performed these deletions without the sort of discussion that takes place on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons before deletions occur. It is galling that I do not have copies of the speeches in their corrected and annotated form. I added a lot of work to the raw transcripts. There was nothing to stop you, as a plain courtesy, from leaving a message on my talk page and giving me a little time to respond.

If you cannot personally retrieve copies of the work you deleted, please let me know who to contact for it. O'Dea (talk) 00:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If I intervened ahead of time, my apologies. I was patrolling, and working my way down the page. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Prosfilaes, the permission for use of the text of these sources has been verified and archived in OTRS. Could you please undelete them so I can indicate such at their talk pages? You can confirm I'm an OTRS volunteer with any other volunteer. Thanks! — madman 20:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I hadn't noticed the sources had been userfied; I have placed the PermissionOTRS templates and will let him or her know that the sources can be moved back to mainspace. Thanks! — madman 20:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thought you'd like to know that the above work has now been Validated. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 15:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stuff I've been adding[edit]

I've been adding minute notes for the meetings of the Board of Alderman and the mayor of my city. So these are the minutes of our legislative sessions, I am not sure if these are within the scope of the project. I was planning on uploading all of our city ordinances as well, which I do believe are within the scope of the project.

Also, is it convention here to post messages back and forth on user pages, such as I am doing here, or is it convention here to keep the thread all on one page. I usually keep it all on one page on en.wikipedia. Thank you Zellfaze (talk) 00:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Automated import of openly licensed scholarly articles[edit]

Hello Prosfilaes,

We are putting together a proposal about the automated import of openly licensed scholarly articles, and since you are an active Wikisourceror, we'd appreciate yourcomments on the Scriptorium. For convenience, I'm copying our proposal here:

The idea of systematically importing openly licensed scholarly articles into Wikisource has popped up from time to time. For instance, it formed the core of WikiProject Academic Papers and is mentioned in the Wikisource vision. However, the Wikiproject relied on human power, never reached its full potential, and eventually became inactive. The vision has yet to materialise.
We plan to bridge the gap through automation. We are a subset of WikiProject Open Access (user:Daniel Mietchen, user:Maximilanklein, user:MattSenate), and we have funding from the Open Society Foundations via Wikimedia Deutschland to demo suitable workflows at Wikimania (see project page).
Specifically, we plan to import Open Access journal articles into Wikisource when they are cited on Wikipedia. The import would be performed by a group of bots intended to make reference handling more interoperable across Wikimedia sites. Their main tasks are:
  • (on Wikipedia) signalling which references are openly licensed, and link them to the full text on Wikisource, the media on Commons and the metadata on Wikidata;
  • (on Commons) importing images and other media associated with the source article;
  • (on Wikisource) importing the full text of the source article and embedding the media in there;
  • (on Wikidata) handling the metadata associated with the source article, and signalling that the full text is on Wikisource and the media on Commons.
These Open Access imports on Wikisource will be linked to and from other Wikimedia sister sites. Our first priority though will be linking from English Wikipedia, focusing on the most cited Open Access papers, and the top-100 medical articles.
In order to move forward with this, we need
  • General community approval
  • Community feedback on workflows and scrutiny on our test imports in specific.
  • Bot permission. For more technical information read our bot spec on Github.

Maximilianklein (talk) 18:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Prosfilaes,

I was the IP who created the above page.

Whilst I can see (presumably your?) argument for deleting the cursèd thing, it happens to be a target of the chain of LUA code behind the expansion of {{cite journal}}. The real root problem is that entire code base associated with that (& similar templates, c.f. {{cite book}} for example) assumes it will only be executed in the context of wikipedia, is riddled with deprecated parameters (not easy to diagnose as they are buried in the LUA code) and in my opinion simply is not suited to use under wikisource as it stands (it generates help references like doi (which really ought to lead to w:Digital object identifier instead, and my above edit was an attempt to provide such linkage in the lowest-impact fashion; Billinghurst already having ruled out changes to the LUA code even earlier on.)

So how to slash through this particular Gordian Knot, especially as you appear to have ruled out yet another avenue of approach? 05:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was a page in the main namespace (=> a work), which was why it would have been deleted. If it is intended to be a help page, then it needs to be Help:Digital object identifier; if it is how we would utilise it within Wikisource, then Wikisource:Digital object identifier; if it is to be a discussion page then Wikisource:Requests for comment/Digital object identifier. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:28, 6 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Billinghurst:(Apologies for misspelling your name above.) You appear to have kind of (deliberately?) misinterpreted the situation.

The requirement of this page is a downstream consequence of somebody's mindless requirement of the use of the {{cite …}} family of templates, and their similarly mindless (looking at you: @George Orwell III:) assumption that synchronising them with wikipedia equally serves for use within wikisourse.

Put bluntly it doesn't.

The entire support code has been written (I blanch at the term "designed") from a wikipedia-centric point of view only and if you cannot cope with either modifying the code to suit local conditions and expectations; or in putting suitable cross-wiki linkages in place to spackle-and-grout over their shortcomings, frankly there is no hope for you.

I have now offered two potential solutions and been rebuffed both times.

I can only consider subsequent shortcomings to be of your own effective manufacture. 00:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You haven't offered any solutions to me. You just stuck an inappropriate page in mainspace that had no apparent reason for existing, so I deleted it. If there had been some indication they were there to do something, I might have entered into a discussion about what to do.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Any further on this subject can go to Wikisource:Scriptorium, which is where it should have gone instead of randomly hacking around in mainspace in the first place. This thread is closed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed. Instead of "looking at" me, you should have raised the matter with me directly - but don't bother now; it took all but 5 minutes or so to rectify your issue once I deciphered the jist of what I've missed earlier this week. Please let me know (directly rather than jedi-mind trick if you please) if any of the "labels" like doi should point to something else beside the associated "core" articles hosted on Wikipedia. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gave this a first pass the other day, Not sure how to do the hieroglyphic symbols in-line. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well – first, the original text is here. Secondly law acts published by ZHP are in Public Domain, simillary to government's acts in USA. Lastly, I am surprised that 6 sentenceses could be translated influently... Probably I don't know English, then you might indicate me the lacks of fluidity. Superjurek (talk) 08:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi, I don't know how pings work here, but replied to you here. Basically the short stories I removed are contained in the volume In Our Time. This is all explained in the book's article here and I'll be adding a section to the article about copyright because it's confusing. It's best to get me at en.WP here. Thanks, Victoriaearle (talk) 15:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion of the dasdardly doubled dangling words[edit]

Hi Prosfilaes. I've started a discussion of the issue of the dasdardly doubled dangling words over on Index talk:A letter to the Rev. Richard Farmer.djvu in order to keep the discussion in one place and findable for future editors. Apologies for the awkward phrasing; since it's not responding directly to a message from you it is written as if addressed to a third person. In any case, I would appreciate it if you could respond there. Cheers, --Xover (talk) 10:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Practically proofread, apart from heiroglyphs...

Is there a volume2? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:10, 11 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is; search Worldcat. Unfortunately, Cox broke my Internet, and I don't have time to search to see if it's PD right now, nor source images.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:24, 12 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unicode character[edit]

You helped me a while ago with a unicode character. Do you know if ther is one which combines a ö and a ó. It is printed here: (First line of the page). It is an spelling for ő in Hungarian. --Tobias1984 (talk) 07:31, 28 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tobias1984:, try ö́ or Ö́. They're not showing correctly for me here, but that is the correct composed sequence: ö or Ö plus a combining acute accent. ö́ is deprecated, but may display better. (It seems that the Wiki software has taken the deprecated character and converted it to the normalized form, which is the same as the first suggestion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:51, 28 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks a lot. They all seem to display equally for me, so I will just use the first one. It would probably need a specialized font to improve the appearance? --Tobias1984 (talk) 09:33, 28 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It should be doable by proper stacking alone. It needs a smarter font, but not necessarily a specialized one; Noto Serif, one of the Google fonts displays it correctly. Gentium also did, but that's a more uncommon font from the Summer Institute of Linguistics, even if it is usable for general purposes. Most of the other fonts I tested did print the accent on the diaeresis instead of over it, unfortunately.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:17, 28 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Exilarch’s Letter[edit]

The Aramaic comes from Mann in 1922:[3]. Published in the UK, and confirmed as being out of copyright by IA / Cornell. The English translation is from the same time period but I can’t find the source online (I think I took it from a library); this was five years ago. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Dear Prosfilaes, the fact that in modern editor Ƿynn and Ȝogh are not used isn't fair. I agree that the situation with Ȝogh isn't clear, it's Insular G that was used in Old English, but Ȝogh is the only letter that can imitate it. If you have noticed, capital Ȝoghs in my edits were G, I had to look throughout all text to make G instead of capital Ȝogh. The tendency of using w instead of Ƿynn is awful, I know sometimes this sound was written like u or uu, but it wasn't w and Ƿynn was the main letter for this sound, so it's more than natural and fair to use Ƿynn in Old English texts. I just wanted to make the texts look like they would look in the manuscripts, the orthography is a very important thing and with that orthography texts look better, maybe not usual thanks to that tendency, but they look like the original Old English texts

--Birdofadozentides (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We do work from modern editions usually, though I suspect you might find some support for working from manuscripts. However we do it, we don't make up our own editions. We don't change the orthography of existing works.
Our Old English works are far worse condition than I would hope; they should be transcribed directly from scans, so we can check for correctness versus the editions we use. I will try to supply scans that can be worked from in the next couple days, and I encourage you to work on them or suggest better public domain editions.
The insular g (ᵹ / Ᵹ) is available in Unicode if it is the best letter to use. I'm not a fan of using ƿynn or other letters when they obscure the text for modern users more than it conveys useful information, but part of the point of the rules is to reduce disagreements like this; we use what the edition we're using uses, and we can transcribe multiple editions if the differences are worth transcribing or editors just disagree enough on what edition should be transcribed strongly enough that they're willing to spend their time transcribing both.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't know insular g was available, in that case I would've used it. I don't think Ƿynn would obscure the text that much, users just have to remember it and become accustomed to it. It's a real pity you don't change the orthography of existing works.
I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what scans you're talking about. Are they manuscripts scans or just scans of some printed books? Are they scans of existing works or the scans of works that are not published on the site yet? But I guess it's the scans of the existing works. And by working on them you mean I would look if all the words are in correct order and if they are the same as in the scans, am I right? Without the ability to change orthography. It'd be too sad. Unfortunatuly, I can't suggest better editions.
The disagreement was because I wanted to change the orthography and it happened to be forbidden here. I didn't know about it and all my effort was pointless. I beleive it's because of copyright, you can't change somebody's editions even in orthography (espesially if the edition has translation) without asking permission, asking permissions is troublesome, and some owners wouldn't agree for that, so the texts will be forever written here with this orthography, and all was in vain. I didn't think it was that serious when I was changing the orthography, I just wanted to put Ƿynn and Ȝogh (actually, insular g, it's a shame I didn't know it was available) in Old English text, once again, like it would've been in the manuscrits, like it's supposed to be written.
I'm sorry to hear your Old English works in not a good condition, I like how they are arranged.

--Birdofadozentides (talk) 19:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Licences and illustrators[edit]

Good point adding the illustrator's license with Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (1907)‎‎, pretty certain that it hasn't been a common point of practice. Probably should be running a check on Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Illustrator to see how we have been going (though that is lots of legwork). Thinking this a little more, with translations we have {{translation license}}, do you see that we have a similar need or responsibility with illustrators, though noting that illustrators often are often adjunct to the work rather than the primary focus. If we did double tag, then that we can check for omissions more easily. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:38, 13 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can see having a separate license for illustrators. There are a lot of works that just because we have some illustrations tipped in, doesn't mean that they have much value, but we should still track the licenses on the whole work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We could tip secondary licences onto the talk page an example being Fire-Tongue where there is a single image, though there is a simplicity with all on lead page of the work. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Book by Lucie Boissonnas - Un Vaincu[edit]

Hello. Mr Boissonnas has sent as heir and owner of the rights the email to OTRS for Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International a couple of weeks ago ( I was in copy). Do you happen to know if the process takes long or if there is a way to know if there is something wrong in the email sent. I have not seen the OTRS ticket implemented on that file. Thanks. Hektor (talk) 13:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The OTRS process unfortunately takes forever; as COM:COM:OTRS says, "The current backlog for tickets in English is approximately 51 days". About all you can do is wait, though feel free to work on it here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:14, 26 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey[edit]

WMF Surveys, 18:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey[edit]

WMF Surveys, 01:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey[edit]

WMF Surveys, 00:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

template, etc. placement[edit]

Something funky happened with this edit. I am not sure how to make an adjustment to correct the error & restore my original intent (text color application). Could you take a look at it please? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:33, 17 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know; you can undo it if you want, but it will break with the new processor.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Londonjackbooks: FIFY 03:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@114.73.&c.: I caught that. I couldn't find a way to thank. Thanks. Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Book Un Vaincu[edit]

Hello, I feel pretty dejected about this one. See Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard. I got an email written from the son of the translator, and three months later nothing has happened at OTRS level and the file is going to get deleted. Is there anything I can do besides asking on the OTRS notice board ? Thanks. Hektor (talk) 06:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You don't need to assign the role, you will see that the rights functionality resides with you as an administrator. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:50, 29 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have you reviewed whether the text of the existing licenses will need to be changed as we move into the yearly incrementing post 2018? As we get into the 1923-1996 phase, what changes should we be making for the wordings in {{pd/1996}} as we tick over each year. Cannot say I have even looked, just thinking we should start that process. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't see PD/1996 as needing any changes. The non-renewal tags will need a change from 1923-1964 to 19xx-1964, but it's purely a cosmetic change. Basically all the templates with 1923 in them need changed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Contributing scans[edit]

Do I recall correctly that you have access to a good library, and also scan works? I've discovered that our copy of Ten Days in a Mad-House is incomplete, has no scan to back it up, and that no scan exists at IA, Hathi, or Google. This is a landmark work by Elizabeth Jane Cochrane (under the name Nellie Bly) and it's shocking to be unable to find a scan anywhere. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:53, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do scan works, but my local good library only points me to the Gutenberg edition.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:47, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you have any ideas on how we might obtain a scan, please do let me know. It's a travesty that we don't have this one. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:15, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To work on[edit]

Index:Bedford-Jones--The Mardi Gras Mystery.djvu Index:CAB Accident Report, Eastern Air Lines Flight 14.pdf

Public domain[edit]

"Foreign works published after 1924 are likely to be still under copyright in the US..." Are you sure that date is correct? Should it not be "after 1923" to match the content of the following table? This is one of several points where discussion is needed to ensure the Help page is correct. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There was an off-by-one error. We can discuss the points, but most of those changes are clearly correct, and the rest of them need pointwise discussion, not blanket reversal.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

According to the talk page, Van Gogh was fluent in English. Unless we have evidence the original was not written in English, I'd say we can't make the assumption that it was not. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, he wrote in English, e.g. File:GUGG_Letter_to_John_Peter_Russell.jpg. But we have a letter to his brother in Dutch, and I can't believe that a Dutch man would write a suicide note to his Dutch brother, both living in France, in English. is a translation into English that differs from our English version; it seems to be a modern CC-BY-SA-1.0 version.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Problems --[edit]

Can you take a look as I am seeing some 'not here' users possibly. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:54, 19 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not seeing anything problematic.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for looking, looks like another admin dealt with the issue. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:49, 20 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikidata, volumes and editions, and serialized tales[edit]

The whole story as shown under the volume namespace gets linked at wikidata to the author and the volume.

The edition also gets linked to the volume.

The story links to every edition it was "part of".

The edition links back to every story that it has a portion of.

It is complicated to look at as a whole but viewing from different perspectives it is complete. -- RaboKarbakian (talk) 13:53, 25 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please, let's keep this in one place.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:00, 25 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reminder: Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 19:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reminder: Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 17:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Do you mean to say that the proposal to retire this template failed? --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: Copyright on "Facing the Sea, with Spring Blossoms"[edit]

Hi there. You messaged me this a few days ago:

Please stop uploading copyrighted works. See WS:COPY. Facing the Sea, with Spring Blossoms is the work of an author who died in 1989, first published around that time; it will still be in copyright for quite a while. Likewise, Thomas Yue's translation of Translation:Ballad of Mulan is still copyrighted, and even freely licensed works usually still have requirements that you mention the license and other niceties. We can't keep it with no clear license.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

My reply:

Sorry. My bad. One question: How do I see the edit history of a page already deleted? I forgot to keep a copy of what I uploaded to "Facing the Sea, with Spring Blossoms". If I'm not allowed to view deleted pages, can I at least get what I typed up back? Thanks. A Little Contribution (talk) 17:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm new to wiki and not familiar with the protocols etc. Forgive me if this is not the proper way to message you. A Little Contribution (talk) 19:08, 23 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I am struggling to understand why you would remove the names of public-domain books from an author-page simply because we do not yet host the work? Isn't listing the works the first step to getting them? Then the next person might include an external scan, the next person upload a scan, a final person add the work? Peace.salam.shalom (talk) 03:40, 13 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Peace.salam.shalom: It is not usually the first step; I suspect it rather rarely would adding the title of a work matter. People aren't going to add scans because there's a red link on the author page. And this link was just the name of a supposedly public-domain work; without the year of publication, we can't be sure that it is in fact public domain. To add book names without even the year adds minimally and takes away more from the neatness of the page.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:51, 13 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I literally go around adding works that are red I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in that. This seems absolutely insane to say that it "takes away from the neatness of the page" to list an author's works...Peace.salam.shalom (talk) 03:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let's look at [4]; you've got a page with 8 works with external links, meaning that someone has ample choices. You added a random name of a work into the middle of a chronologically sorted list. If you're going to add to an existing chronologically sorted list, you need a year.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then add a year, don't remove the work from Wikisource. That's the opposite of progress. Peace.salam.shalom (talk) 05:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, maintenance is not the opposite of progress. Try to clearly improve things instead of adding random things and expecting other people to clear it up.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:47, 13 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll continue adding the names of works to authors that don't list all of their old works, you can continue deleting references to public domain works and calling it progress; I'll either go ask folk in the Scriptorium to tell you to stop or I'll just walk away from the project if you continue - whatever, we're all just volunteering our time...try not being so hostile. Peace.salam.shalom (talk) 07:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I ask you to help make Wikisource better, and you simply tell me to shove it; who's being hostile? Adding works without years in the middle of chronologically ordered lists of works is not making things better.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trying to understand this work and its positioning. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Billinghurst: Something I recreated for a user to recover their translation, and I've now deleted as still copyvio.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Is an admin permitted to use his admin powers on Wikisource to force their preferred version during a dispute? On the English wikipedia that would be grounds for removing such powers. Wee Curry Monster (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Wee Curry Monster: Here as on enWP the answer to that question depends on whether the user in question is acting as a user that happens to also be an administrator, or is acting as an administrator. Protecting a page that is currently subjected to edit-warring is clearly a case of the latter. Picking the version that is actually in line with our practices also strongly suggests acting in their capacity as an admin. As a new user to this project I would also strongly suggest you take reverts by experienced users as an opportunity to ask questions (the "D" in BRD) in order to learn the policies and practices of this project. Citing RS and INVOLVED here will avail you about as much as citing Wikisource's policies would on enwp. Xover (talk) 19:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for replying, the point is that I have tried to discuss this. See [5] for example but I was ignored, its a bit difficult to learn anything from someone who doesn't respond. As for what you describe as edit warring, I made a change that more accurately reflected what sources said about this person. The person who initially reverted me did so, not because of any concern about accuracy, but (and I'm quoting) because they felt it damaging to Argentina's sovereignty claim. I don't believe that to be a policy based argument, they then went to the admin board and claimed (falsely) that I was bringing a dispute from en.wikipedia. Its on that basis that Prosfilaes removed information I added and has obstructed me ever since and refuses to discuss it. If I can't see a valid reason for removing material I am going to question it and I have carefully made sure that my edit was in line with your practises - I kept it short and literally added one word, then identified the locus of the dispute. At the moment an uninvolved editor wouldn't even know this was about the Falkland Islands. And nobody has told me what policy I am allegedly violating with this edit. Perhaps you could tell me.
I have a fair catalogue of material that I would like to add but at the moment I feel quite discouraged from even bothering Wee Curry Monster (talk) 19:34, 9 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wee Curry Monster: You're in full-on BATTLEGROUND mode and fighting over a single word, just exactly as if this were enwp. Prosfilaes has responded consistently on Author talk:David Jewett but you're too busy explaining to them why they are wrong to take onboard what they're telling you. In particular, you're getting pushback due to the sheer number of edits (including reverts) and the confrontational stance on the talk page, much more so than on the specific choice of words. I get it that you're responding to conflicts elsewhere over this issue (and the user now indeffed on enwp), and we all get heated sometimes with the right provocation, but now is the time to cool off and let it rest a bit.
The description on the author page as of now looks perfectly fine in terms of level of precision and amount of detail. If using "pirate" in addition to or instead of "privateer", or including mention of the Falklands, would improve it further without getting into too much detail then that certainly sounds like something it should be possible to discuss calmly and dispassionately on the talk page. Maybe solicit wider input from the community if the issue is tricky. It certainly doesn't sound like an urgent matter or something for which metaphorical "pistols at dawn" were a plausible outcome. This whole project deals with dusty 100+-year old books fer cryin´ out loud! Xover (talk) 20:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Xover:I took some time out and cooled off, so you cannot really categorise my reply as being in a battleground mode. I'm being reverted by one editor not for any concern other than, in their own words, they feel it is damaging to Argentina's sovereignty claim over the Falklands. I don't believe that to be a valid reason to exclude information even if it were true. I did once think it may be a cultural thing, since being half-Spanish I realise that Piratas is a serious insult in Spanish, whilst in English it is not. But my history with that editor leads me to conclude their main focus is removing material they believe to be detrimental to Argentina's position. For example, that editor on en.wp sought to remove all mention of Luis Vernet's dealings with the British Government. Vernet is a key figure in a crucial period for the dispute. This editor repeatedly removed material claiming it was only mentioned in British sources, whilst using Argentine sources that also mentioned it. In the end, after providing photos of original documents, he removed them from the article claiming they cluttered it. He also filibustered discussions and insisted on the same discussion every time the same material was introduced into a related article. So you're asking me to have a calm and dispassionate conversation with someone who is out to game the system. Books may be a 100 year old and very dusty but can contain information that some would prefer was left forgotten.
I also have had similar issues on wikisource in the past, when the same editor attempted to stop my publication of Jewett's report from 1821. And I'm seeing the same behaviour, his first comment is that Jewett's piracy is only mentioned in British sources and is a British POV. I added sources to demonstrate to others that this isn't the case; even Argentine sources use that monicker. So I am in the unfortunate position of wondering whether I should bother trying to add further contributions to Wikisource, if they are going to be disrupted and it seems that editor has found an admin willing to back them up. What would you think in my position?
I do believe the changes I've suggested would significantly improve the description, because A) at the moment if you read it, you immediately think what dispute and B) because it is more accurate. And I don't believe it is adding too much extra detail. However, I'm being reverted without a valid reason, I take the opportunity to ask questions and the answer is "drop it". I am not in BATTLEGROUND mode but I am frustrated at the apparent willingness to side with an editor motivated to be disruptive and a refusal to actually engage in discussion. Wee Curry Monster (talk) 12:02, 19 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You haven't edited here for six years and you come right back to the same page you had an edit war on earlier. There's many many pages you could be editing on; this is literally one page, Author:David Jewett that you insist must conform to your opinions of what it should read. In your position, I would understand that I can't win every editing disagreement, and that the best thing to do is to walk away from the page, maybe even remove it from my Watchlist, and work on something else. Cf. Meta:The Wrong Version, and recall that this just doesn't matter as much as a Wikipedia page, that any one who really cares can click on the link and read the Wikipedia page.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is a fair bit of material that I could be adding and I started to do so 7 years ago. I stopped at that time because my editing was being disrupted by an editor who'd also disrupted my editing on en.wp. I was quite disheartened that an admin should choose to reinforce that editor using their admin powers. And I'm discouraged from doing so now because it seems that 6 years later, you're still doing it.
Please answer one simple question. Is damaging the Argentine sovereignty claim a suitable reason for removing material? Wee Curry Monster (talk) 14:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wee Curry Monster: The salient point here is *wikipedia*, that sister is built on sources and mechanisms to show attribution. This is a source, potentially for attribution elsewhere, not a fork of whatever the article there does or does not state. Please appreciate the distinction, and excuse me if I have misinterpreted this contribution. As for locking the page, I regard that as disruptive, better to have two or three regulars pointing out this is not in line within the scope of this sister (which, by my reading, it is not). CYGNIS INSIGNIS 15:16, 19 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you may have misunderstood. This concerns an author description, I updated it [6] but it keeps being reverted [7]. The editor has previously insisted this is only cited in British sources, is partisan and "damaging to Argentina's sovereignty claim". I was able to demonstrate with sources [8] this isn't the case. It seems to me that removal is partisan rather than my edit. I had planned to add some early 19th Century material relevant to early Falklands history, my area of speciciality but if one editor deciding it's damaging to Argentina's sovereignty claims is justification for removal I'm rather persuaded not to bother. Wee Curry Monster (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We have no mechanism to resolve what one user considers important to note here, I am immediately wary of any discussion of that here. The description of the author should be absent, beyond some bibliographic indication it is the individual one can read about elsewhere, and not protected from a disputant over that screed. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 15:47, 19 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your reply, I can understand your reticence, I'm rather weary of having to discuss the term pirate again with the same editor for about the 10th time. Wee Curry Monster (talk) 16:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We accept any historical material on the subject, as per WS:WWI. We will not remove works because of a political bent. You say "It seems to me that removal is partisan rather than my edit."; please reread Meta:The Wrong Version. I'm not acting as a partisan here; I'm acting as an admin trying the minimal solution to stopping a edit war, since peaceful negotiation didn't help. Work some place else besides Author:David Jewett, and stop trying to discuss the term pirate.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:43, 20 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually I wish to discussion your actions. I asked you above, a simple question. Is damaging the Argentine sovereignty claim a suitable reason for removing material? I note you avoided answering it, so I'll ask it again. I would appreciate an answer. Wee Curry Monster (talk) 15:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I answered that simple question: "We will not remove works because of a political bent." To the extent that it's a battlefield question, I'm trying to actually do some work here, and if you're not interested in moving beyond Author:David Jewett, I don't see much point in my replying futher.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yet here you are backing an editor removing material because of a political bent, which you acknowledge is the wrong thing to do. I wasn't bringing a conflict to Wikisource, an editor who has openly stated their nationalist reasoning did and you have chosen to reward that by freezing the author at their preferred version. And please stop patronising me by referring to Meta:The Wrong Version that's just irritating to an established editor; not to mention inapproriate when someone has actually flat out stated their removal was for nationalist reasons. I am quite prepared to discuss alternatives to what I proposed but for that to happen there needs to be an environment where the admins will step in and stop disruption not facilitate it. It's that I'm pissed about, not an argument over one word. Wee Curry Monster (talk) 17:08, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cf. Meta:The Wrong Version. You keep telling me I protected the Wrong Version, so that seemed like the appropriate page to point you to. Feel free to edit elsewhere, but I see no value in unlocking that page. I don't see any value in continuing this discussion, either, so I'd appreciate it if you take it off my talk page.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:09, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"David Jewett, a 19th-century naval commander. For the professor of astronomy, see David C. Jewitt." [hatnote at wikipedia] compared with "American-born naval officer, mercenary and privateer who played a notable role in the history of the sovereignty dispute between Great Britain and Argentina." at the author page here, somewhat resembling the current lead at our big sister. I cannot see how inclusion of these facts, notes, and other material is exempted by WWI, they are not works in the sense the WWI attempts to define and, rather, content that is specifically excluded. If everything after the comma is removed, the reader's eye will see a link to wikipedia. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 13:48, 20 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can see what you're trying to do. @Cygnis insignis:From the template guidance: "description: A brief description of author's works, and personal history; usable for specific notes." Would the personal history not include what he is known for. His actions in the USN and Brazilian navies are not well known but his actions in 1820 are. Wee Curry Monster (talk) 15:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

backwards guesses at the purpose of things[edit]

Often I guess wrong about the reason for the existence of things, but not always.

There is a big overlap between "lazy" and "efficient" and, I try to live there. So, every opinion or idea or memory I have is tainted with this preference. So, that is two warnings.

There is a wikipedia tool that gets used here that, invisible to the diff, changes entities into unicode chars. I was using ndash, mdash, and minus entities because it is easier for a person to see when you have the wrong one or the right one and some software invisibly changed them.

My early 2000s understanding of html is that the entities are good because the numbers might change. And they did! Unicode was being written then and new numbers were assigned to those entities. So, if anything I wrote that used — in 2004, which I didn't, btw, but if it still existed, with no changes from me, would be displaying the unicode mdash and not the latin-3219 or whatever encoding of it now.

And the ascii characterset, while so very very deficient, is so very accessible. So, here is a weblink of a page that used to reside on dev.mozilla, in the case you would ever need such information: --RaboKarbakian (talk) 14:17, 24 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well. Not only am I very well and thoroughly corrected, I learned from this rfc experience that html is the child of email! It is like Darth and Luke for me! All I have to say is: RIP Netscape 3, where ever you are, you were the very very best!--RaboKarbakian (talk) 16:53, 24 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pulp fiction. Part II[edit]

You'd said: "... can you just tell me the issue and I'll try and get a scan and index page available on Wikisource promptly?"

I've been having a rethink. If the offer is still open, could you import the April 1924 issue of Popular Magazine [9]. If this works, we could go further. (Or, alternatively, you could add scans of the texts already done—I could give you a partial list—and I'll try to copy-paste my work on the relevant page.)
An additional reason for my way of working is that being online long in a session makes me very nervous. And short sessions are not possible (with my limited ability) in certain magazine stories with a lot of section anchors to manage. Thanks —Akme (talk) 19:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The offer is still open, but there's some personal life stuff in the way right now, which will take a couple weeks. But I did load this: Index:The Popular Magazine v72 n1 (1924-04-20).djvu.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:55, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. That's just (and all) that I wanted. Please ignore all my other requests till I've managed transferring the work already done. I don't see any problems working with short stories, but am somewhat nervous about the novels —Akme (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How we will see unregistered users[edit]


You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

File:Cambridge by lamplight - 9 woodcuts.djvu[edit]

I think your transfer of File:Cambridge by lamplight - 9 woodcuts.djvu from Commons back in May didn't quite work; it looks like it only imported the description, not the actual file. Could you fix that, or would you prefer me to fight my way thru the bureaucracy? JesseW (talk) 22:01, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can't fix it; I'm not an administrator on Commons. Sorry.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I'll file an undeletion request -- would you like me to ping you to try the transfer again after it is undeleted, or ask a different Wikisource admin? JesseW (talk) 03:26, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Filed: . We'll see how it goes. JesseW (talk) 03:30, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The files have been un-deleted; could you try Special:Import again (or should I ask another admin)? JesseW (talk) 12:03, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]