User talk:Physchim62

Hello, Physchim62, welcome to Wikisource! Thanks for your interest in the project; we hope you'll enjoy the community and your work here. If you need help, see our help pages (especially Adding texts and Wikisource's style guide). You can discuss or ask questions from the community in general at the Scriptorium. The Community Portal lists tasks you can help with if you wish. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page. --BirgitteSB 19:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks Birgitte! Physchim62 12:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser
Wikisource does not have any checkuser abilities. All checkuser requests need to made to the stewards on Meta. I have only gone through the process of running a checkuser once and it was kind of an emergency done on IRC and not very easy. I really don't see that it is worth the hassle yet, but do what you think best. No one here is actually going to close a process differently based on unestablished users. Wikisource has a history of people rounding up friends from WP for deletion disscussions, so we have a long established policy of basing consensus on Wikisource editors rather than all opinions. I would suggest you start a thread at the administrators notice board of any personal attacks you recieve since no one noticed the earlier one. Then we can collectively keep an eye on the situation.--BirgitteSB 15:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I would advise against requesting a CheckUser for the reasons BirgitteSB gave. Doing the CheckUser request for an established user seems to be going against Assuming Good Faith, since we have no real reason to suspect anything is up besides the nature of the discussion.  As BirgitteSB said, discussions of this nature have a tendency of attracting people from other WMF projects to put in their two cents as well.  I say we wait and see how things play out.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 19:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I thought that "assume good faith" was one of those Wikipedia policies which never made it to Wikisource. User:Sherurcij has accused me at least once of being personally motivated against him or her (edit of 15:58 UTC 2006-10-21, visible here, at least one other similar edit seems to have been deleted); admin User:BirgitteSB has accused me of "bad taste" here without mentioning his or her actions or comments in the ongoing debate elsewhere. Frankly, certain objections strike me as a question of "the pot calling the kettle black". All I wish is to have Wikisource's advertised policies followed: I have contributed public domain text to Wikisource and will continue to do so all the time that it is open to my contributions, yet what do I get in return? Physchim62 16:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I certainly value your contributions including your opinions on copyright. The above linked remarks were intended to show weak disaproval of certain action (significantly changing a template and then nominating it for deletion).  I thought "poor taste" would express my disaproval of action without being so strong as "inappropriate" or "out-of-line".  I am certainly aware I have done things which are in poor taste and even worse.  In fact I made a completely out-of-line post to a mailing list today which I am not proud of.  I did not mean imply that I am above doing anything wrong, so please call me "pot" if you like.  Honestly I know have done worse things than I have ever seen of you; even outside of today (which is a particularly shameful one).  That said, I have found it that it generally helps to explictly comment on what actions I disaprove of in when I am worried about things escalating.  It is hard to remember exactly what was going on back then, but I think I was worried that others might react more strongly making things worse and I was hoping my own explicit disaproval would prevent a this.  I am sorry that I upset you whatever the circumstances.  I do not believe I have ever made it clear to you that I do welcome your opinions and information on copyright(even when I disagree).  I am sorry for neglecting this as well.  I know I have been frustrated with you in the past, and I regret not handling myself better on those occasions.  I have been trying to move the copyright discussions along by pulling out the works that we should easily be able to achieve consensus to delete.  I really hope to move through all the orphan works shortly, and then begin to examine all the no-notice works on their own merits.  I feel I am too invovled in these debates to close them but I am trying my best to keep them moving forward.  I realize you probaly do not think I am doing enough, and I am sorry if this has frustrated you.  I wish I could get more people to take part in this, but that is a common problem on Wikisource.  I hope you can see that in you do have respect in return for the work that you do here.  Whether others agree with you or not, no one can doubt your sincerity and your williness to research rather than  guess at these matters.  Anyways I hope this note helps you feel better and if not I hope something else brightens your day.--BirgitteSB 21:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Speeches
''Thanks for your reply, I will do my best to address the concerns you raise in a more public forum as well as here. I have based my arguments around the idea of originality, that is to say that a "slavish copy" cannot qualify for copyright protection; this appears to be where you rejoined the discussion. The Court of Appeals case is based around the idea of publication, and states in two different ways that a speech is not considered to be "published" under U.S. copyright law. Although I have discussed this with Benn on IRC, it is not an argument which I have yet chosen to bring into the open on Wikisource. The treatment of speeches as unpublished works is much less amenable to simple guidelines like my proposal that "speeches be treated as any other literary work": however, I still feel that a treatment on the basis of 'who is the real author of the words' is the only way to go forward: I certainly do not believe that the mere fact of creating a transcription of a speech gives rise to a copyright. I will leave it to you to correct the minor factual errors in your contribution. Physchim62 15:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)''
 * I am really not sure what you are replying to here or what non-public forum I am involved in. I haven't sent you any emails or anything.  If you haven't confused me with someone else entirely please quote what I have said that you are replying to.  If this is just in reply to the discussion at WS:COPYVIO, I don't understand why you have replied on my talk page.  Or why you are not pointing out any factual errors in that thread, as I have no idea what you are talking about.--BirgitteSB 17:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I gave you the chance to check your sources before I corrected them for you. I myself have no idea what your talking about either, so at least its mutual. Physchim62 13:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would have had a better chance to check my sources if you had given me a better hint than "I will leave it to you to correct the minor factual errors in your contribution." I really don't mind your correcting my misunderstanding, but I do not like you implication that it was willfull.  Please ask me more specifically to strike any incorrect comments in the future.  I will leave these to stand to keep the integrity of your reply.--BirgitteSB 18:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

United States Supreme Court
I am glad to see that you are adding cases but please follow the format that me and Metal.lunchbox came up with. -- Wabbit98 9:13am 26 Janurary 2007 (PST)
 * I'm doing my best to, where are the problems? Physchim62 10:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems you got the header weong. Here is how it is supposed to go :

The individual opinion pages should look like this :

Woth the authors name in the name area, not the Supreme Court. Hopefully this clears things up. -- Wabbit98 5 February 2007 9:37pm (PST)

I've cleaned up a few of these but it's rather difficult considering what's available on these cases on the net. Anyways you should also be aware that you've labels some of these cases as being decided per curiam while they infact are not. This can be confusing, but is relatively minor. I'll just go ahead and change it where I see fit. Also make sure you aren't making orphan pages. In order to make these documents easy to find and nagivate we are including them on the SCOTUS index page and SCOTUS category. Thanks --Metal.lunchbox 21:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

PD-1923
Dear Physchim62,

You recently changed the PD-1923 template to refer to only U.S. authors. Isn't it the case that the "1923 law" also applies to the works of authors who are foreign to the United States but who have registered these works with U.S. copyrights?

216.165.199.50 23:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Physchim62,

Thank you for your reply on my user page. However, the copyright policy you describe is different from what I have observed in actual practice here. In practice, persons living in countries using the pd-old-70 rule are merely warned not to make use of certain texts through the pd-1923 template, which, as you can check through category:author-PD-1923, is present on many non-US authors. I assume this is a kind of favoritism shown to U.S. law, because of that being the place where the servers are located.

You said you would discuss changes along these lines in the Scriptorium. I thought I would make you aware of the facts beforehand, and that I'm given to understand that some of the users here are inclined to host all works here in all cases where it is legal to do so. I wish I could summon the various references where it was discussed, but that would be difficult. If you are interested you could browse in the WS:COPYVIO (maybe a text search for "template" or "pd-old-70" would help), or browse the headings in the archives for the Scriptorium. One user wrote an essay on the subject at Meta, and another or possibly the same user communicated with the head of Wikimedia about it on her user page.

216.165.199.50 04:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Changes to PD-1923 template
Dear Physchim62,

Were you intending to discuss your change to the PD-1923 template or other PD issues on the Scriptorium? I just wanted to alert you that your PD-1923 change (having been mistaken as my doing) and some of your other changes are already being discussed there.

216.165.199.50 00:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've seen, yes, I must dive in. I'm working on an overhaul of tagging at the minute, but I've been a bit distracted by some other copyright problems... Physchim62 00:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)