User talk:Uprisingengineer

Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Missing items on your uploads
Hi, on each of your text uploads we require you to add a license template at the end that indicates why the work is in the Public Domain. i.e. what is it that enables us to host this work? I see that you're indicating the sources in your edit summaries. This should be on the Talk: page for the work. There's a special template (Textinfo) that should be filled in for this. I should also note that our strong preference is for scans of the the original printed text to be made available. That way the words in the Mainspace can be verified against what was published. This also helps prevent changes to the text that were not what the author intended. Thanks, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, beeswaxcandle! Sorry, I must've overlooked this post! I'm now adding the textinfo templates, and I'm making sure to try and track down a googlebooks link that contains an original scan (even though the scan, in some cases, may be a third, fourth edition, or reprinted by a different publisher, as I've found with a University of Harvard text). I created the Discussion page with a Textinfo template for the work Egoism, you can see here: Egoism Talk.  Thanks for showing me this, I looked through dozens of source code pages and couldn't find anything like that, big help! Uprisingengineer (talk) 19:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Copyright and works of Émile Armand
Hi. I am wondering on the information upon which you are relying to demonstrate that the works of Émile Armand are out of copyright. Generally works published solely outside of the United States would have a 95 year hold on reproduction (see Copyright policy), which generally equates to pre 1925 publications. Without that evidence, we will be unable to retain the recent additions. I understand that they are published elsewhere on the web, though that alone is not sufficient to meet our requirements per what Wikisource includes — billinghurst  sDrewth  01:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I see that we only have some works that are a direct concern, so I have labelled those that could be problematic. Are you aware whether these works were written in English or French?  We re going to ensure that the translations are also in the public domain. — billinghurst  sDrewth  01:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for adding and explaining the copyright note for the Armand page. I'm looking through the works now to address some of your concerns; what is best practice for documenting what I find?  For instance, this article, The Gulf (Armand), I have added this text, with a hyperlink, but I'm not sure this is the desired style: "English version published in The Conservator ...."  I looked through a few other pages (using the Kropotkin pages as my templates), and I didn't see anything noted up like that.  Let me know, thanks. Uprisingengineer (talk) 16:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll keep going through the other articles, of course, if the above note looks good. Uprisingengineer (talk) 16:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi. Typically we utilise textinfo template on the respective talk page to record the data and history for text additions that are not supported by scans; Czar did that on one of the works that you contributed. This is most definitely needed where we have scraped the text from elsewhere on the web and required the capture of the provenance. We also utilise the  parameter in header to clearly indicate that there is information on the talk page. For works that the author did in English we are just needing the statement that it is English language publication and the details—clarity; for translations, both the original and translation need to be out of copyright, so both of those details need capturing; more detail at Translations. We know that there is some complexity with these matters, and we are here to support and to come along and maintain behind you, we just need the facts with which to work. Copyright laws of the 20thC are a complex beast with twists and turns. Aside: Where we have scans of works, our usual methodology, then the scans are obviously are the source, so wouldn't be noted by that means. — billinghurst  sDrewth  04:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, thanks for the info! I think I have it from here, thanks! Uprisingengineer (talk) 00:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

No disagreement
Hi. There is no disagreement that source links should not be in the body of the text, for the official guidance &hellip; the first talks about external links, and the second gives guidance to the preferred sourcing method. External links: Mediawiki sites that provide specific pages on a work can be linked from the notes section of the header. These links provide another context for a work, an article, quotes, or other media, and should be separate from the source document.

&hellip; Talk pages for works (main namespace) A talk page for a work in the main namespace can be utilised for highly specific and highly relevant links to external sites, and often in conjunction with the use of textinfo template. If this form of linking is used, then the use of the edition = yes in the header of the work could be considered to identify further information is available. and as I fixed up other parts, I aligned to the style. The body of a work is reserved for the text of the work, and it should only be some of the old old old works that still have links in the body. — billinghurst  sDrewth  03:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)