User talk:Tonyfuchs1019

 }}

If you can't think of any particular corners to improve on Wikisource, how about taking a look at Portal:Religious texts, Portal:Wars or Portal:Texts by Country for some ideas? Don't forget to list your contributions on those pages as well so others will find and read them in the future!

Yann (talk) 11:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Keith Olbermann
Hi,

Thank you for your interest in this project. I've noticed you've been adding talks delivered by Keith Olbermann on his TV program. I was wondering if you could verify that these texts are GFDL-compliant or in the public domain. The reason I ask is that because these were broadcast on television, they are legally under copyright. In order for them to be allowed on Wikisource, whoever owns the copyright to these texts must have relinquished them. Unfortunately, if such evidence does not exist, all of Olbermann's stuff will have to be deleted.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 01:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello,
 * Please answer to the request above before uploading more texts. Thanks, Yann (talk) 02:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes, sorry.
 * I don't know what I need to do to verify the copyright on Olbermann's Special Comments. I accessed them through Wikipedia, which links to the full text of each Comment at MSNBC.  How do I verify whether or not the texts are GFDL-compliant?  ~ Tonyfuchs1019, 17:18, 10 November 2008.
 * Hello Tony, I've begun a discussion at Possible_copyright_violations. I don't believe the texts are GFDL-compliant; the copyright likely belongs to MSNBC and to get them licenced under the GFDL or any other compatible licence would require MSNBC's explicit approval.--Shanel (talk) 02:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009‎‎
I see you changed American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009‎‎, and by doing so, you removed a large amount of it. Was I wrong to post the entire bill?—Markles 20:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not wrong at all - only that the entire bill, as a single article, is a huge file; I broke down the Divisions and Titles into their own individual articles to make them more manageable for the system. - Tony 17:05, 10 February 2009.


 * OK, thanks.—Markles 14:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

New template
I created a new template today, Template:Act of Congress. It may help.—Markles 22:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Applicability of proposed legislation
Gday. I am wondering whether proposed legislation is something that WikiSource should be housing. There are so many variations on proposed legislation from around the world, and that will go through various renditions that I think it will be too difficult to manage. Examples are Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act and similar pages at Category:Proposed United States federal law

Final legislation is understandable, though often readily available elsewhere. For specific "notable historic" legislation I can possibly see that we may wish to have a copy of the original starting piece of work, and the final version, though I would have thought that this would be the exception, not the rule. I would like to hear your opinion before I take such a discussion to a wider forum. Thanks. -- billinghurst (talk) 12:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

A couple of FYIs
Ant,

First off, a big thanks for stepping up and trying to pick up the slack - been busy trying to fix the Executive Order category.

Second, I don't know how or why but there is a duplicate to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, misnamed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ( the interim title used early on when HR 3590 was first introduced ). Since the both of those are incorrect or superseded by the PPACA pages you started, I know we need to delete them eventually but wasn't sure if you wanted the missing titles moved to the right one or not. They aren't broken up correctly into the proper subtitles, parts, subparts, etc but I'm assuming everything under each title is the passed Senate version which eventually passed the House into enacted law but can't vouch for it's accuracy.

Third - eventually all the Acts listed for each session of Congress under the current Wikisource list setup will be done away with and are going to appear under their proper United States Statutes at Large volume along with that session's Concurrent Resolutions, Presidential Proclamations, etc.
 * You can view one of the modern volumes in full to see what they are suppose to look like layout and format wise when published by GPO/NARA/OFR/etc. HERE (all the lists can be found under Front Matter - PDF preferable for viewing over plain text)
 * I started to convert Volume 123's Public Law list but gave up half way thru hoping GPO or similar would publish something somewhere on one of their servers and just upload and edit a scanned copy of it to save time and prevent headaches. It should still give you an idea of what the PL listings "should" eventually look like and where.
 * To see one of these scanned volumes broken out to plain text transclusion pages, Volume 1 is by far the farthest along (though layout and style are quite different from a modern volume). Check out it's scan Index and compare it to the pages transcluded created from the Index. Volume 33 is more similar to current volumes if it helps any but keep in mind it is not as far along as Volume 1 or 5 are.
 * Volume 117 to 120 all have been "started" but they only have rough layouts with raw listings so far.

Finally, I've noticed that stat pages (the page an Act can be found on in the Statutes at Large volume when it is published) is an ongoing mystery - most likely because the THOMAS or GPO sites have been around so long. Well neither are quick to put up recently enacted laws or never gave the stat page in the first place. Access the GSA server HERE for the PubLaws-List where the NARA notice containing this info can be found, usually the next business day after enactment. I rather it didn't become "common kmowledge" or even linked anywhere on Wikipedia because high traffic could put that PENS list back under requiring a password again. (PLEASE!)

Happy posting..... George Orwell III (talk) 01:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Header refresh
Hi again...

Thanks for all the Obama works you've added lately. One point of order though - the basic header template has gone under several upgrades since the last time you probably were made aware of any. The only "major" change you should now be implementing (moving forward) is the use of plain-old Header instead of Header2 for all mainspace works. Don't worry about going back and fixing those you've already done - a Bot will be tasked for that again sooner or later. Please visit the Template:Header's documentation page for all the other stuff our basic header can do now via additional parameters/values. Thanks again. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikisource:Possible_copyright_violations
FYI - Possible_copyright_violations. JeepdaySock (talk) 14:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

2012 Democratic National Convention/Michelle Obama's Address
Hi. Wikisource can only host works that are clearly in the public domain. In this work that have added, there is no indication of the applicable licence, and there is no evidence that the work is in the public domain by release, so at this stage it should be considered a copyright violation. I have listed it for copyvio discussion, rather than speedy deleting the work as I know that some of the Obamas' works have been released under Creative Commons. If you can find a place where the work is indicated as being CC, then please add a link to the work's talk page. Thanks. — billinghurst  sDrewth  05:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Already addressed. Now properly linked & Licensed. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)