User talk:Wild Wolf

Hello, Wild Wolf, 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. —Benn Newman (AMDG) 02:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, just wanted to let you know that your tremendous effort to improve our categorization is still very much appreciated - I wish I had the patience to help you, keep up the great work! :) Sherurcij (talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει) 04:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you for your recent helpful categorization efforts, which I've noticed at Author:Ted Patrick and Author:Edward Zorinsky. Most appreciated!  Smee 07:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

Author pages
Hi, Wild Wolf,

I wanted to thank you for your tremendous work on the author pages. Categorizing those pages was something I did on and off, but got extremely bored by the project that I couldn't ever really get very far (not to mention having to look up quite a lot of authors to see how I should categorize them did not make the project any more exciting). But such categorization is something that is quite desirable and needed, as it helps us to better structure this project. Again, thanks for all the hard work you've put into doing this task!—Zhaladshar (Talk) 00:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Era categories
Hi, Wild Wolf,

I noticed you are adding era categories (like "Category:Modern authors" or "Categry:Early modern authors") to author pages. I'd like to point out that with the updated author template, such categories are automatically added to a page by the author template itself, so you no longer have to add them by hand. For example, look at Author:John Gilbert Baker. He is categorized under Early Modern and Modern author categories, but this is due to the author template and not because such categories were explicitly added by a user.

I thought I'd just point it out as it would ease your job in categorizing these authors, and that those categories will likely be cleaned up by a bot; you don't want to expend energy that will ultimately be reverted.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 00:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Author: John Mitchel
Hi, Wild Wolf, your recent changes to the above page. To clear up a matter, although they are called letters, they were infact articles. Are you familiar with the term an “open letter.” Same thing here. They were letters which appeared in the United Irishman Newspaper. Articles addressed to individuals or groups. What do you think? I would consider articles more appropriate. They also appeared in his published works, in whole or part also? Regards --Domer48 15:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikimedia Pennsylvania
Hello there!

I'm writing to inform you that we are now forming the first local Wikimedia Chapter in the United States: Wikimedia Pennsylvania. Our goals are to perform outreach and fundraising activities on behalf of the various Wikimedia projects. If you're interested in being a part of the chapter, or just want to know more, you can: Thanks and I hope you sign up! Cbrown1023 16:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Contact us on IRC at #wikimedia-pa
 * Join our mailing list
 * Visit our blog at http://wmfpa.blogspot.com
 * Sign our list of interested participants

CotW
Greetings, I noticed that you have edited the Author:Maxim Gorky page - and that's all the justification I needed to (spam your talk page, and...) inform you that he has been chosen as the current Collaboration of the Week. Please consider a few minutes today to help improve our collection of works by this fine author! Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week:this week: Ernest Hemingway 05:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC) As above, but replace with Author:James Cook Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Captain Cook 06:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

CotW
I can't help but notice that you're a past editor of Author:Richard Francis Burton - given his fascinating place in literature and knowledge of "exotic" lands at a time when little was known outside of the British Empire, he was chosen as this week's Collaboration of the Week. I was hoping to convince you to spend a little time improving Wikisource's coverage of his historical contributions. If you're stuck for ideas, I could certainly use help formatting (especially footnotes!) the Personal Narrative of a Pilgrimage to Al Madinah and Meccah over the next day or two. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Richard Francis Burton 22:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

publication date categorisation
Hi, Zhaladshar has suggested on Template talk:Header that we add a publication date parameter to the header template. As you do a lot of categorisation work, it would be good to hear your thoughts on how the parameter should operated. See also Scriptorium. John Vandenberg 00:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

WS Index
Just though I'd point you to Catholic Church Encyclicals and Roman Catholicism, as I attempt to make the Index pages more useful on WS :) Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Pulitzer-winning writings 00:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Author pages
Regarding the author template, you will note that I have been putting it on author pages, but in a horizontal format which works just as well.

As for the categories, I find some of them to be utterly useless. They are encyclopedic in nature, and they add nothing that cannot be found in Wikipedia. Many have nothing to do with the person's role as an author. I fail to see the point of Category:Shakespearean plays for plays that are already recognized as Shakespeare's. Would we do something like that for other playwrights? Eclecticology 02:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

strange diff
this diff moved a lot of discussion from the top to the bottom. Was that intentional? John Vandenberg 01:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Author:John Richards
Hello,

The point is just that I could not find who this John Richards is. Regards, Yann 12:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Author:G. K. Chesterton
Wild Wolf, you contributed a 1975 anthology of essays that another user, user:Eclecticology says contains works written after 1922. Since the Wikisource servers are in the U. S., they have to abide by U. S. copyright law which protects most works written after 1923. Ordinarily such works are moved to Wikilivres which is located in Canada. If you care to learn more or comment, follow this link: WS:COPYVIO. 216.165.199.50 06:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Wild Wolf, there is a similar problem with Fancies Versus Fads. There is a good chance it will be moved to Wikilivres. It's listed under the same heading as above. Res Scholar 08:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The red links on the author page should be removed, as the encourage others to add the pages again with the best of intentions.
 * It would be great if you could update Author:Gilbert Keith Chesterton with the copyright information that was exposed at WS:COPYVIO(2007-10), using the copyright-until template, in the same way that Author:Wystan Hugh Auden has been annotated with copyright information as a result of WS:COPYVIO(2007-11).
 * You may link to the works on using wikilivres.
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 04:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know which of us you were addressing, John, but I'll help too.

Wild Wolf, there are six more candidates for migration based on Quadell's elaboration of copyright law, listed in the same place specified before. If this turns against your favor, let me say I regret the inconvience this has caused in light of all the value you have added to Wikisource, (like all the categories). ResScholar 20:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

adminship
I would really like you to consider becoming an admin here, and have set up a community discussion: Administrators. You will not be obligated to undertake a different workload as an admin; the only differences will be that your changes don't need to be approved by someone else, and you can delete pages if they met our speedy deletion criteria. Please accept this nomination. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no protocol for this, so you can either follow the style of Sanbeg, or you could write an essay like ResidentScholar did, do your own thing, or you could do nothing at all because the lack of your acceptance hasnt stopped anyone from voting in support. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Congrats you are now a sysop!--Birgitte SB  17:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Collaboration project
This weeks collaboration project is G. W. Bush. Please take the time this week to identify and/or transcribe one important work by, or involving, this very prominent person who is relevant to us all. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
for your contribution to the Portal:Parliament of England page.

John Cross 20:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

email notifications
Hi, after a proposal to enable email notification, Wikisource is now able to notify you of any changes to pages on your watchlist and/or changes to your talk page. In order to take advantage of these features, you need to enabled them in your preferences.

p.s. It is expected that all admins allow emails from other users. -- John Vandenberg (chat) 15:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

HotCat
Hi, I have set up HotCat to assist in the categorisation of pages. It will need some improvements in order to suit Wikisource needs. Suggestions welcome. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Arts and Crafts Essays
There's no need to add "populate" tags to the authors of the Essays: I'm working on getting that anthology added right now. I should have it finished by tomorrow. --Levana Taylor 20:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Civil War
I saw on your wikipedia user page that you're interested in the civil war, so I thought that it might interest you that I've uploaded a few books on the buildup (The Nullification Controversy in South Carolina), the war itself (Lincoln's Suspension of Habeas Corpus as Viewed by Congress, American Bastile), and reconstruction (Essays on the Civil War and Reconstruction, Reconstruction: Political and Economic, and Sequel of Appomattox). My plan is to add them to wikisource by proofing the OCR, but to get them validated (and perhaps featured?) someone else would have to proof them as well. Would you be interested in doing that for any of these? If you are, I can focus on the one(s) you're interested in first. If proofing isn't your thing though, that's fine too =). --Spangineerwp (háblame) 15:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for the additions to those author pages, much appreciated. :) Cirt (talk) 21:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Admin needed
User:Hohauto on a vandal rampage. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Why I categorise and defsort Author: redirects
Hey WW. With some surnames, they can appear in references and indices as Lane-Poole or Lane Poole, and there is never clarity (especially for indexers) if it is double-barrelled or family name. So the redirects that I have done for some -- billinghurst (talk) 00:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) help those searching in categories find the name in a couple of places
 * 2) as both names always appear, it enables then to be appropriate alphabetical situation, rather than out of kilter, eg. Category:Authors-T look at the couple out of place, and Mark Twain in place.

No license tag?
Why are you adding the no license tag to pages that are clearly public domain? Cirt (talk) 22:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Care to give an answer to the above question? Cirt (talk) 01:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Whose copyright status is uncertain" - meaning what? The bio info on the author page itself? The copyright of their works on Wikisource? Cirt (talk) 20:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

New authors, what is easier
When I am creating new author pages, is it easier for you if I just stick them with a one letter FIRST_LETTER, and you know they are there, and can add them as you categorise. Or doesn't it matter, and put Xx and you will find them anyway? -- billinghurst (talk) 22:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Author: John Ellis
You don't have a bot tag; so why do you keep changing this page to have a broken link in the header, after I've reverted it?--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * HEY! Stop break links to author pages! Don't just keep making the same changes over and over without discussion!--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked
Blocked 24 hours for disruptive editing. See also Administrator's_noticeboard. Cirt (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: I will gladly unblock, iff you will promise in the future to engage in discussion, first, instead of choosing to revert as a primary option. Cirt (talk) 23:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Update: Unblocked - deferring matter to Administrator's_noticeboard as appropriate. Please, engage in dialogue and discussion with other users on this project instead of simply engaging in disruptive editing and reverting. Cirt (talk) 00:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * While I may differ in the adjectives and adverbs used, I heartily concur with Cirt's request for your participation in the discussion about how we should proceed with author pages. I think that it is a matter that has slipped under the radar and needs to be brought back into focus, and you have a specific viewpoint that needs to be annunciated. — billinghurst  sDrewth  01:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi
Welcome back. :-) Hesperian 23:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Can you please explain how you interpret the tag no license to be the "pd tag" in your edit summaries? -- Cirt (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Every author page should have a license tag, and no license is the best tag if there is no other applicable tag. We need to obtain copyright clearance for the works on Author:Nicholas_Xenophon; fwiw, the Aust. govt has recently selected an unacceptable CC license. ;-( John Vandenberg (chat) 22:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah okay. Thanks very much for the explanation! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 22:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I am presuming that John's unacceptable above should be interpreted in the context that the works with that licence will be unable to be housed at Wikisource due to the no derivative aspect.  His personal opinion of what is acceptable is not the discussion point. — billinghurst  sDrewth  04:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reading my mind; either reading would have been accurate. The CC license selected by the govt is non-commercial.  Worst possible outcome.
 * I think we could obtain a better CC permission from Nicholas Xenophon if we sought it, but this govt decision will make it harder as we now need to justify why Wikisource doesn't accept non-commercial/non-derivative licenses. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, unfortunately, both the "non-commercial" and the "non-derivative" parts, make these documents not admissible on Wikisource, without some other form of approval with another license. -- Cirt (talk) 04:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought your editing looked familiar. "I have been a Wikisource user since June 24, 2006. I also edit Wikipedia as Wild Wolf."
Thank you for leaving the image. &mdash; William Maury Morris II Talk 21:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Surveys Are No Wild Rumors
Every once in a while there is a survey about wikipedia's needs that I see shown from wikisource. One asks about money which I no longer contribute. Other statements in those surveys that I always fill out was about wikipedia losing editors. I used to post a lot on wikipedia (and since 2006) but I too left editing on wikipedia. Can you ever imagine as to why wikipedia would be losing money and editors and needing replacement editors? It is of important concerns and I expect those concerns to get worse. Much of this I gather from those surveys while the surveys do not even mention wikisource. Have you any idea as to why that survey is written the way it is as it seeks a better wikipedia? Just curious because it reminds me of General Taylor's book title. &mdash; William Maury Morris II Talk 22:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

removal of admin rights
Hi Wild Wolf,

You've lost the admin bit at your annual confirmation — primarily due to inactivity, but I am also aware of allegations of sockpuppetry over at the English Wikipedia? If you're gone for good, then thank you for your years of service to the project, and good luck for whatever you do next. Should you return some time in the future, then of course you'll be welcomed back to editing. I think due to the above concerns, reinstatement of the admin bit would not be automatic; you would need to test for community consensus by re-nominating. However rest assured that we are not Wikipedia, and concerns/issues over there do not necessarily translate into concerns/issues over here. Regards,

Hesperian 01:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC)