I think that your contributions on Security Council resolutions is very goood. On a previous occasion I've visited the UN website, and made the observation that navigation there could be a lot easier. Many of the earlier resolutions are only available in pdf format. In looking at 1537 I created a link to two earlier resolutions that were mentioned in anticipation that they will be added at some future time.
In the interest of brevity can we shorten the titles? Does the "UN" need to be mentioned in every title? Is there any other Security Council?
I'm assuming that you plan to add a lot more of these. :-) At some point I will need to break down the Historical documents listing. (I've never been completely satisfied with it, and agree with many of the complaints that have been made.) If you do plan to carry on further with this project, I'll look to making that adjustment sooner rather than later. I look forward to your responses. Eclecticology 18:23, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I'll be sticking around, I'm sure. I don't mind if you want to take the UN off the title names, but I think the full title looks better and would probably be easier to find in a search.
I think I'll start working backwards with adding the resolutions. Do you know at what point they started being released in HTML rather than PDF?
Any ideas for breaking down the Historical documents listing? I think the UN and Constitutions sections could be broken off into seperate lists, but I don't think there's quite enough content for the others. Ambivalenthysteria 07:26, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Including "UN " is only a matter of three characters, so I'm not going to push to make a big deal out of it.
- The PDF files were a matter of adding resolutions from the pre-Internet days to the data base to make it complete. I can get back to you later with a precise date when I have had time to research it.
- The two areas that you mention are a good places to start. My intention is to make these sub-categories of the Historical documents page. For now I would suggest carrying on as you have been until I get a chance to set it up for the resolutions in the next few days. Eclecticology 17:14, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Following up on the PDF files issue, it looks as though they use pdf for all the files, but you can copy and paste only for the ones beginning in October 1993. That brings us back to resolution 878, and perhaps a couple more before that. BTW are you noting the vote results when these are passed? Eclecticology 16:42, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks. I haven't been so far (was following the existing examples), but that's probably a good idea. I'll go back and do it. Ambivalenthysteria 21:47, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Re 184.108.40.206: My experience with watching these people is that they fortunately have short attention spans. This one has made two changes about an hour apart, and nothing since. His behaviour merits banning. I tend to look for activity at clearly unrelated times before acting. If he's using a dynamic IP it won't do any good anyway. I'll keep an eye on him.
I would never try to prevent people from copying material from Project Gutenberg, but I do think that time would be better spent adding other material. The Gutenberg material is already easy to access and to use. It is a continuing active project that fulfills many criteria that most of us here at Wikisource feel are important. If I were to massively copy material from I would be more inclined to take from Bartleby (sp?) which divides its material in short pages and treats you to a pop-up ad every time you want to turn the page. Other encouragements might be a site which only has material in uneditable PDF files, or sites that have not had material added for the last year since they could die from lack of support. There are other times when Gutenberg material is recommended, such as if we are trying to have a complete set of an author's works. Just be guided by your own good sense.
I think that what you are doing with the UN resolutions is just great, and if I were in a position to dictate your activities I would say, "Take it to completion." If Wikisource is to be a credible project in its own right, it needs to do something different, or to put value-added into its work. That was what I had in mind when I suggested linking directly to older resolutions. The UN site does not do that. Another important feature can be thoroughness. Without that thoroughness, we start to look as though we drop otherwise very good ideas when we get bored. I'm sure I could find a hundred things for you to do, but I'll give you a chance to finish your current project before I do. Eclecticology 17:45, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- I've put a 48-hour block on the spammer. Eclecticology 13:19, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- On the basis of my own purely subjective analysis of the request you are now a sysop. If you are able to communicate in any language other than English could you please indicate the fact at Wikisource:Administrator.
- Given your work on UN materials, it's come to my attention that we do not yet have the UN Charter in our files. Whoever stated it months ago stopped with the preamble. (hint, hint :-)) Eclecticology 16:48, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
Re "Questions": When I encountered this page it only included questions about why it should be included. It seemed that a talk-page whose only purpose was to question its own existence did not have any reason for its own existence. I was just answering your question. :-) The facts that the page was not attached to an article page, and that a check of what links here produced no results only strengthened my conclusion that it was one of those weird pages that was accidentally created. Eclecticology 17:29, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
- PS: I've now removed the "Questions" link from recentchanges. Eclecticology 17:41, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
Dear A- I hope I am not out of line by adding these country pages. I am desperate to put some sort of order into this project.
Until I hear from you I shall make no more country pages. But, I would ask you to give me you go-ahead. As I see it, it is only a bit of my typing and seems to cause no harm to anyone. But as I said, I will cease and desist until I hear from you.
Finally, where the heck do we discuss such things?
All the best...[[PaulinSaudi 09:11, 20 May 2004 (UTC)]]
Did I do wrong by establishing an "Author" page for George C. Marshall in lieu of a link to the 'pedia? If so please let my know why and accept my mea culpa.
[[PaulinSaudi 14:28, 29 May 2004 (UTC)]]
I think that the presumption with a living author, has to be that copyright applies. In the minimum the copyright question needs to be mentioned on each such page whenever we appear to be taking a position other than the one that derives from a first impression. Those of us who plan to contribute over an extended time should be leading by example. Without that, confrontating any contribution of copyright material by casual contributors becomes difficult to sustain. Eclecticology 22:41, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The prima facie presumption is that any American writings (including speeches) published after 1922 (not 1924). We have the burden of proof for establishing our right to publish the material. There are many ways of carrying that burden. I'm not saying that we shouldn't include Jackson's speech, but we should have some legal rationale within copyright law for carrying it. The speeches of the presidents while they are presidents are not a problem since they can be treated as works for hire covered by copyright rules covering US govenment publications. A candidate's speeches are not works for hire since he is only looking for the job, and has not yet been hired. IIRC there was already a court case that prevented some others from publishing Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech. Eclecticology 09:29, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I am sorry to see that you don't want to stay with us. I have suggested an alternative way to make categorisation at Wikisource:Scriptorium - let's see what comes of that, I think it is more like what you are looking for. I hope you will follow what happens with the categories, and maybe join in again some day, if it develops into something you can accept.--Christian S 18:16, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you are a sysop on www.wikisource.org, and because you have not been active in the last 6 months. A procedure is currently going on to remove inactive sysops.
If you wish to keep your sysop status, please answer on Wikisource:Administrators. Please indicate why you want to keep your sysop privileges.
If you do not respond, your sysop permissions will be removed.