User talk:Sherurcij/1

Hello, Sherurcij, 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. :)

Sudoku deletion request
Hi, I noticed you tagged How to Solve Sudoku Puzzles: Beginner Tips for deletion, just to let you know the deletion template should be added to the actual page to be deleted not to the talk page. Also if the reason for the deletion is because of copyright it should be listed at Possible copyright violations. This one'll get dealt with anyway so no need to move it. AllanHainey 13:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Newspaper headlines
Hello, thank you for your edits to Author:Daniel Desmond Sheehan's "Why" article. I am not happy/clear about the title headine change. I reproduced it exactly as in the newspaper copy I have. It has one bold headline, two sub headings (and a small line under each) all three with stop point. I also set up all his other articles similarly. Optically I find this preferable, fitting layout then, though Wiki may wish modern layout concepts. I don't like the blue dot and could do away with it using the spacer &.n.b.s.p.; Osioni 18:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:Peace_Sign.svg
Hi, Sherurcij, a message was just posted on the Scriptorium about Image:Peace_Sign.svg (on Zodiac Killer letters), and upon inspection, the image is missing. Since you've added all of these, I wanted to point that out, in case you had it to add to WS. Thanks!—Zhaladshar (Talk) 22:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Form letter
No, we don't currently have one. I need to suggest, though, that for the time being you put this off. There's a big copyright debate raging on Foundation-I right now, and it's turning out to be that we can only post things which are GFDL, GFDL-compatible, or public domain. Anything under a non-commercial license seems to be forbidden. Until this is resolved, and depending on whether we must delete all documents which aren't under one of the three licenses, we might also have to delete the book that you would like to add. For more information on this topic, see the Scriptorium.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 19:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if it would or not. I'm no copyright lawyer, so I don't know the ins and outs of this.  But the way that the Foundation distributes the contents of these projects, if they commercially distribute content which cannot be commercially distributed (for example, if this book is released under some non-commercial license), the Foundation could face legal trouble because of it.


 * I'm not all that familiar with this book (like, if it's been published by a big publishing house), but if you could get them to release it under a GFDL or some similarly compatible license, then we would have no problems with it being here. If they won't, I can only suggest that you hold off until this debate's been concluded and some course of action is definitely known.  It would be a shame to delete a work you put a lot of effort into.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 19:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Possible personal attack
Just to let you know, you may want to read Administrator's noticeboard and comment on the discussion as you are being discussed. AllanHainey 11:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

New Texts
Hi sherurcij, just so you know it is possible to update the new texts by editing Template:New texts. AllanHainey 07:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Charles Whitman pages
Hi Sherurcij. I just wanted to point out that the pages you added concerning Charles Whitman are not linked to anything else on Wikisource. This means that someone coming to Wikisource looking for these documents won't be able to get to these pages except through the search feature. And we both know how good the search is. ;-) You might want to create some author pages or link this to some appropriate index. You can find some pointers on this at Category:Unlinked.  Drop me a line if you need any help. - illy 16:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

PDF
This is it in HTML format, though I can change it to TXT, DOC, whatever you like. It's actually quite a good read--I haven't done any proofreading whatsoever. Let me know if there are any other PDFs you'd like me to read. :-) Jude (talk) 03:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That was ABBYY, yes. It's a very good program. :-) Jude (talk) 04:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Suicide notes
Hi Sherurcij, I listed some suicide notes at possible copyright violations. Originally I found them through the Woolf suicide note and the suicide note category but now I realise most of them were added by you extremely recently. I'm sorry, I should have contacted you before listing them. I haven't blanked your additions. The question of copyright remains, however, and we should discuss the matter at the possible copyright violations page. Best regards, GrafZahl 11:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Unlinked: Redux
Hi. Yeah, your proposals (Wikisource:Suicide Notes, etc.) would work. I was thinking that if I were doing it, I'd try to find a good way to link your new pages (i.e. Wikisource:Suicide Notes) into Wikisource:Historical documents. But I'm not too sure that's a good solution. May just into Works for now. I think you may have prompted me into looking at overhauling Wikisource:Historical documents as there are plenty of historical documents that are not official documents from a recognized organization.

On a related note, you may want to link the documents you've been posting on the Moussaui case to Wikisource:Case law. They would fit pretty well there. - illy 14:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I just added a link from Works to Suicide Notes.

I realize that we are, in effect creating a parallel structure to categories here. I think this probably probably came about as a stopgap to Portals, since they've only recently been implemented. Basically, we're trying to set up better ways for users to browse the works we have since categories have certain limitations. That's why the Author: pages were set up. I think overall, we're still trying to feel our way through this process. Anyway, that's probably more than you ever wanted to know about Wikisource indexes. - illy 15:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Moussoui
I'm sure you've already seen this, but if you haven't... :-) Jude (talk) 23:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

A. ROOSEVELT'S TRUSTEESHIP CONCEPT and other recent contributions
I am surprised to see you are not aware that these kind of contributions have been the sort many of us have working at straightening out for some time. You have put in a number of great texts here, but maybe it is time for you to examine WS:STYLE more closely. Beside not putting page titles in CAPS it is really important to set-up subpages with relative links (i.e. Important Text/Article I)  Please don't hesistate to ask if you have any questions about the "house style" or the reasons to prefer this over other formats. Thanks for all the new texts!--BirgitteSB 14:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That sounds great, just try to have them moved within a week of creation so the redirect is speedy-deletable. Otherwise they have to be tagged with dated soft redirect and can't be deleted for a month.  If you let me know when you have it done I can take care of the redirect deletions.--BirgitteSB 17:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Transcript of taped conversation between President Richard Nixon and John D. Ehrlichman (1971) that led to the HMO act of 1973:
Did you see that we have this? I think you had a different titling format in mind for these tapes so I wanted to point it out.--BirgitteSB 23:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Copyright FAQ
I am not quite ready to work on this project. Unfortunately I think about things for a very long time between coming up with an idea and actually starting on it. I want to be especially careful in this particular area. So I guess my answer is: Still Thinking.--BirgitteSB 21:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sherurcij, I saw your question on Birgittes talk page & thought I'd comment. I don't know any specific USA legislation that prohibits profiting from a crime but my understanding was that this is a principle of common law, at least it is in the UK. I would expect it to be common law in the USA too though it may have been added to statute law too.
 * There is some info on USA & nazi copyright at www.focalint.org though it doesn't name the USA Act. AllanHainey 12:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Copyright on 9/11 transcripts
Hello. Please note that I have proposed that 9/11 Dispatcher transcript, Flight 93 Cockpit Transcript, Flight 93 Transcript with CARTC, and September 11th FDNY Radio Transcripts be deleted in as a copyright violation; I invite you to participate in the discussion taking place on Possible copyright violations. The text will be deleted in a week if there is no dispute that this work is copyrighted. Thank you for your interest in our project. --Benn Newman 15:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Copyright on Aysel Sengun e-Mail
Hello. Please note that I have proposed that Aysel Sengun e-Mail be deleted in as a copyright violation; I invite you to participate in the discussion taking place on Possible copyright violations. The text will be deleted in a week if there is no dispute that this work is copyrighted. Thank you for your interest in our project. --Benn Newman 19:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

WS:COPYVIO
Please leave the nominations made by other people in place. People have valid concerns on these areas and there is no clarity so far. If they wish to make nominations these need to be processed. It is inapproppriate to alter the comments made on these sorts of pages.--BirgitteSB 18:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Consensus deletion and copyright violation are seperate processes. The OJ Simpson note, he feels is a blatent copright violation (legally) and this is why he also put it there.  The others are at consensus deletions because he feels they are outside of our Copyright policy which is even more stringent than what is legally a copyright violation.  It is easy to see how this could confuse anyone because the differences are not clearly explained anyywhere.  But the standards for something being deleted are different for each page, so the nominations need to be treated seperately.--BirgitteSB 20:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Dreyfus
Hi,

Yes, that's very interesting. I added it in my TODO list. Yann 20:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Done: Bordereau de l’affaire Dreyfus. Yann 22:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Welcome template
Hello, you should use (or ~ if you want your signature in the box) instead of. If were ever to change, that would, in addition to decreasing the load on our poor servers, make sure that the person you welcomed doesn't have their message change on them. —Benn Newman (AMDG) 15:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Pentagon paper etc
don't worry about the Pentagon Papers I listed them on the NYTimes index page just because the paper published excerpts. Anyways I listed them on my to do list because I'm working on that NY Times index and because I'd like to maybe add a little something refering more specifically to their publication in the paper. It was a big event. But theres not much to do there really but change the way their listed on the NYtimes index. Thanks for the welcome.--Metal.lunchbox 18:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Iraq Study Group Report
Thanks for starting those wiki links. Its starting to look like a Featured Text candidate already.:-) I was hoping someone else would pitch in. The guy who started the page appears to have dropped out after I swarmed in with prepared text from two days of keyboarding. I left in the misspellings in my conversion from the original text. I can't believe they didn't spell check the thing first. (embedded spelled imbedded several times). Why isn't a contents table being generated from the headings in your Iraq Study Group Report/II? Is there a way to have a detailed contents table (like on what is now the primary page) for each of the sub pages you made? How are we going to get someone to proof this 211k thing for merit status? ;-)Jmcneill2 12:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikisource fr > Vivie le Québec libre !
Hello Sherurcij, May you add the source (Web, OCR, book, or other) of this text, « Vive le Québec libre ! », here, please ? Thank you ! --BeatrixBelibaste 15:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Iraq Study Group Report
Wikisource ISG Report section deletion, User:Pmsyyz, on wikisource, has deleted the title/Preface page Iraq Study Group Report/Preface. It appears to have been listed for speedy deletion and no one caught it in time to specifically protest. Our remarks on Possible copyright violations appear to have gone unheard. The third remark seems to have summed up one of the major reasons for allowing the entire text to remain on wikisource. After all, everything that was in the PDF was part of what the U.S. Institute of Peace released for full reproduction.

I took a look at Pmsyyz to find out what I could. I can't tell if he is an admin, although if he is it would seem logical that it would be listed. I don't know. I suspect that someone needs to figure out exactly what type of public domain copyright this text falls within, and then list it at the bottom of the needed pages.Jmcneill2 12:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

He did it again, reverting your correction about 4 hours later.Jmcneill2 21:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I found a second PDF version of the ISG report that PMsyyz seems to be working from. I have written a note to all of us and posted it on the discussion page .Jmcneill2 06:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks
Please note that Wikisource has a policy against personal attacks. On Wikisource and elsewhere, comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Benn Newman (AMDG) 03:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe it's typical to offer an example of a personal attack, when giving this warning. Help please? Sherurcij (talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει) 04:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Rampant deletionism without clear consensus
I don't have a problem with the deletions as neither side really made a strong case. On the one hand those who believe the works are copyrighted never offered evidence as to why supposedly copyrighted works are without exception treated as public domain. For example song lyrics are sometimes treated as public domain, but we can know they are copyrighted because Neither of these things was found on the deleted works. On the other hand, you never offered evidence on why they would not be copyrighted, only instances of others publishing them in full. Other categories of public domain works have supporting documentation as to their status. As there was no progress being made on answering these discrepancies, I support the deletions without prejudice. I do believe the issue should be revisted if anyone comes up with actual sources on these questions.
 * 1) We can find mainstream publications treating them as fair use (i.e. quoting portions only).
 * 2) We can find sources outside of Wikimedia editors stating that they are indeed copyrighted.

Outside of this note I am going to stay out of the copyright disscussions. Besides the fact that I am in the process of moving at the moment, I cannot figure out how to participate with the lack of good faith being granted. I have had three different people, on seperate occasions, suggest that my arguments were motivated because I just wanted Wikisource to have a certain work or category of works. Nothing could be further from the truth as my own interest lie outside of the modern era. My only motivation for participating in these discussions is that I believe in this project and it goal. That I hold a hard line on copyright violations and I wish to understand where exactly that line is fixed. I have been thinking about how to possibly respond to such comments, and I believe it is not possible. It is like answering if I have stopped beating my wife yet. And I must say before giving up this topic that you have certainly added to the adversarial tone of these disscusssions. If you would protest that I have as well, I will not be doing so any longer. Please remain civil at all times. When you are the most frustrated, take a break and come back to it later. Nearly all the things I have regretted saying online have been said at moments of frustration. Nothing good ever comes out of frustration. --BirgitteSB 08:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

ACLU v. NSA Opinion
We picked up a third editor/proofreader who has established a 100% level for Featured text candidates. Lots of new links have been added and it appears that many duplicate links were removed. I changed the title heading as you can see. I mentioned this on the FT Candidates page as something that probably needed doing. Take a new look and see if you can improve it even more. Lets make another attempt at getting this thing through the FT jury process. It appears we have satisfied all of the objections that were raised the first time.

The ACLU v. NSA oral argument before the 6th Circuit is scheduled for January 31. It will likely be about 90+ days before their decison is handed down and the case is appealed again to the Supreme Court. The penalty for this felony is $10,000 and up to 5 years in jail for each count. Judge Taylor found 30 counts. I'm not an attorney but it appears this could be the first/fasting moving legal procedure to effect Bush. I would suspect that if the Supreme Court affirms the lower court decision (as it did in United States v. U.S. District Court), criminal charges could be filed against Bush personally for violation of the FISA act. The violation of this law is one of 4 reasons listed by legal experts for impeachment.

Iraq Study Group Report has been mostly unattended now for 9 days. At some point, in a week or so, the three of us may want to establish a consenus agreement on how to finish what has been abandoned in mid-stream. It would be relatively easy to bring that up to FT status. I've got a lot of sound arguments for reverting some of those recent changes. I've also got the first edition of that PDF stored on my hard drive. That's the version that appears to be the most readable since it was designed for public consumption by Random House.

I enjoyed reading your post/rant on User talk:BirgitteSB. I tend to agree with your comments about "only host "Poe, Swift and Twain", and US Federal documents", "my contributions, they're the ones that have anonymous editors on the talk page who stumbled across them, they're the ones that you can find links to off of random blogs on the net of people going 'Look what I found!'". I sometimes feel the same way. Its the vast amount of accurate and detailed information that makes Wikipedia and Wikisource the magnets that just keep on growing stronger.Jmcneill2 13:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I left a comment to your post on ACLU v. NSA Opinion. If you will let me know when you are having discussions about or Proposed_deletions, I will take a look into things and venture an opinion. People have a way of becomming like a horse with 'blinders' when they are backed up against a wall defending their positions of authority. This is why they say in the attorney business, "Only a fool will hire himself as his own attorney". True objectivity in a discussion leads to better ideas.Jmcneill2 06:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It appears you might have made a friend. Featured text candidatesJmcneill2 02:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

and then section VIII. Let's get moving and finalize this thing.Jmcneill2 16:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at Talk:ACLU v. NSA Opinion