User talk:BirgitteSB/2009 archive

Copyright

Hello. I have a copyright related question. The texts of RFCs (Request For Comments by IETF) is a public domain? -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 09:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No. Looking at RFC 5000 it contains this note

“

Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78 and at http://www.rfc-editor.org/copyright.html, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

”

The information being conveyed is, in general terms, not protected by copyright. And parts of the RFC, like simple tables, would not contain any elements protected by copyright. However, the duplication of the complete RFC itself is protected by copyright. I am not sure how much basic copyright to explain without knowing your familiarity with the topic. Are you familiar with the copyright law views on "ideas vs. expression" (w:Baker v. Selden is a US example) and "creative effort vs. sweat of the brow" (that last is slang for "physical effort") (w:Feist vs. Rural is a US example)?--BirgitteSB 17:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No, i am not familiar with "ideas vs. expression" concept. You give as example restricted RFC 5000. Let's look at another ones, which i interesed:

RFC1950	RFC1951
Copyright (c) 1996 L. Peter Deutsch and Jean-Loup Gailly Permission is granted to copy and distribute this document for any purpose and without charge, including translations into other languages and incorporation into compilations, provided that the copyright notice and this notice are preserved, and that any substantive changes or deletions from the original are clearly marked.	Copyright (c) 1996 L. Peter Deutsch Permission is granted to copy and distribute this document for any purpose and without charge, including translations into other languages and incorporation into compilations, provided that the copyright notice and this notice are preserved, and that any substantive changes or deletions from the original are clearly marked.

Is this compatible with GNU Free Documentation License used by Wikisource? Yes, i suggest. I want publish them and translate in Russian. Which a wikisource copyright template should be used in this cases? -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 14:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

No it is not compatible because it limits distribution to "without charge". Wikimedia's "free content" rules need distribution both with and without charge to be acceptable.

The "ideas vs. expression" concept hold that only the particular expression of an idea can be copyrighted but not the idea itself. This is how come RFC's and other standards can be copyrighted and yet still be useful as a standard. The standard itself is an idea that cannot be protected by copyright even though the particular way of describing the standard in the RFC is protected. So these examples will not be able to be translated and put on ru.WS but it is possible to write articles on ru.WP that describe the bulk of the information from the RFC without there being a copyright problem.--BirgitteSB 15:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

There are a especial reservation: and that any substantive changes or deletions from the original are clearly marked. This means that a clearly marked changes are possible. But whether or no i will not change the text and preserve this notice. So a wikisource artilcle will comply with all conditions noted here. -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 07:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

That isn't the problem, Wikisource cannot host texts which must be distributed without charge. This is a part of the Foundation rules on free content. These RFC's are not free content; so they are not allowed. It is not about Wikisource breaking the rules listed on the RFC, but rather breaking the rules of WMF--BirgitteSB 01:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

SUL Merging

Hi, sorry to disturb you, but i want to know if it's possible to merge the actual account Myst on wikisource from the SUl account Myst, thanks 86.194.245.102 21:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Log in under the Myst account and then go here--BirgitteSB 00:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

(Yesss, late..., sorry) I want to usurpt the Myst wikisource account to finish my SUL Merging. I'm not the owner of Myst wikisource account. --90.53.128.49 01:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

User rename

Hello. I have noticed that you are listed among the bureaucrat's of Wikisource. I am looking to rename my account, so I can merge my accounts into a unified login. (The account usernames differ between projects). I would like to rename DanielBC to Ellipsis (see wikipedia:User:Ellipsis/SUL). Hope you can help me here, cheers! DanielBC (talk) 23:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. Let me know if there are any problems--BirgitteSB 00:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

mediation

I'll limit my comments here to the problem that led to all this. My comments on Foundation-l will be more general in nature about appeal processes.

The entire process of my disadminship appeared as piling-on and a carrying out old grudges by two individuals, whom I have never been hesitant to challenge. I admit that my seeking of mediation was somewhat feebly expressed near the end of the discussion: "Most of the time I have avoided Pathoschild over the past year. My conflict with him and with Thomas V was severe when I first sought to regain adminship, as it is now. But we had very little interaction in the middle. Removal of adminship will not restore peace, it only exacerbates the problems. My differences with Thomas V are already five years old, so I don't see his intervention as constructive. What the situation really needs is someone who is a little more skilled in mediation." The way the discussion developed, any attempt to defend myself became fodder for new criticisms.

John was certainly within his rights to raise the five points that he did, and I believe that I fairly addressed them directly in my refutations, which were completely on topic. After that, nobody addressed these specific points. After that when Pathoschild so tendentiously intervened everything, went downhill. The specific points that he raised had little or nothing to do with any abuse of admin privileges. If anything discussing them should lead to a reasonable accomodation, not a stubborn defence of the status quo. Look at my use of these privileges. 2/3 of my deletions had to do with clearing out a long series of redirects in relation to the USC; John had advised caution about this, and I was duly cautious.

Am I sometimes argumentative? Certainly, but I see nothing wrong in addressing issues directly and forcefully, and certainly I can be just as conciliatory when others are willing to share their opinions. This does not translate into the unilateralism that some would suggest. Thomas V even tried to attach some importance to the fact that I walked away from the vote on separate domains in 2005. How can that possibly help anybody or anything; drawing current conclusions from something that I didn't do four years ago seems somewhat over the top.

Others have spoken of standards of behaviour, or some inflated idea about what an admin must do. Where are these alleged standards enunciated? Hesperian's comments are typical of some of the more puzzling and self-contradictory responses: "at Wikipedia, administrators are required to use their tools only to enact the will of the community, rather their own will. ... he routinely takes actions according to what he thinks is right, and who cares if it is unpopular with the rest of us?! I confess I cannot help but admire his intellectual honesty and independence. Yet these traits remain irreconcileable with my understanding of the admin role" It is completely wrong to say that I don't care if it is unpopular with the rest of the community; there are no facts to support his position. Would I be willing to sometimes take actions at odds with the popular view? Absolutely! Sometimes that is the only responsible way to do things, though I would normally only sparingly use my admin tools for this purpose; I know of the storm of protest that that that would unleash. Those who claim that I have abused admin tools here would be at pains to find examples of that. If at some point they sincerely believed that that is what I was doing, I have seen no efforts to restore the effects of those supposed sins. As often community standards are not defined, and what passes for community standards is only long-established inertia.

By and large, I have been very tolerant of the foibles of others. I will confront them when the occasion arises, but not to the extent of launching punitive campaigns as has happened here. I don't know how much of this campaign developed on IRC, though something must certainly have been happening there to judge by the interchange between Thomas V and Zyephyrus. How many others were influenced there? If the very public and open Foundation mailing list is not a suitable place for this discussion, how are we to judge an IRC campaign.

My view is essentially that the process has dealt me a serious injustice. Compared to the only other desysopping (for other than inactivity) we are not here in the same league. I very much believe that my adminship should be restored. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 07:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The issues raised by Thomas V are indeed, but they nevertheless contributed to the damage done by the process.

I don't find any evidence that Pathoschild holds people to a higher standard. He may try to hold people to his standards, but that in no way makes them higher. His unilateralism is far more prominent than anything that he accuses me of. It's perfectly understandable that he would take steps to minimize any opposition to his actions.

"Enough time to be exposed the community standards of behavior" seems like a catchphrase of some kind. It's now more than a year since, so "time" is hardly a factor now.

Inertia is not a product of accidence, but of a persistent failure to question. The problem with unwritten standards is that they assume too much; those who may have been involved at the time those standards were first understood fail to account for the fact that others were not a part of the discussion, and that those others do not regard those so-called standards as beyond question. If they are actual standards, there should be no difficulty in summarizing them; otherwise they can become movable targets subject to the whims of whoever is seeking to invoke them.

To the extent that there were real issues I acknowledged them long ago, well before the desysop process started. I responded to John's five points by directly addressing them. I also have no problem dealing with and finding common ground on any of the specifics that were specifically raised. My strongest comments were almost all directed toward Pathoschild's tendentious distortions of reality, or Thomas V's intrusion. Remove those, and there's not much left.

Mediation, in general, is not limited to content, it can apply to a broad range of circumstances. What it needs is two (or sometimes more) people who cannot find common ground by themselves, and a third party who is willing to go back and forth speaking with both sides in search of a solution, or until it is clear that neither party will move from his taken position. This situation is more about a conflict with one person than about anything wider.

Yes, it should result in the restoration of adminship, but my starting a new discussion myself is not likely to bear positive results as long as that one person is so intent on keeping me out, by unduly stressing the negative. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The protected The Black Cat‎

Please, draw your attention to Talk:The Black Cat‎. -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 16:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

WS:WWI

I'm not sure it's worth keeping the issue open by offering a proposal for my personal views of what en.WS should include. To follow rough consensus, and to close an issue that's not hugely productive to argue over, I might offer a change of"

The English Wikisource only collects texts written in the English language.

to

The English Wikisource collects texts written in Modern English (ISO 639-2 eng), Scots (ISO 639-2 sco), Middle English (ISO 639-2 enm) and Old English (ISO 639-2 ang).

The ISO 639-2 tags are a bit wonkery, but they are as unambiguous as you'll get. (One could add links to the Ethnologue/ISO 639-3, for even more clarity and precision.) I might add a comment about Scots texts being held here until if and when a Scots Wikisource opens, but that's not consensus, and it's a bridge that can be crossed when it comes up.

If you really think that it's worth drawing up several distinct proposals and arguing over it, instead of trying to specify what looks to me to be rough consensus, I'll draw one up for my position.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Administrator confirmations

Hello BirgitteSB. I've archived the April batch of confirmations; feel free to review their closure: DarkFalls (⁷/₈ or 87.5%), Pathoschild (¹¹/₁₂ or 91.7%), Sanbeg (⁷/₇ or 100%), and Wild Wolf (⁶/₁₀ or 60%). —Pathoschild 19:04:55, 03 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I have had a very busy week.--BirgitteSB 18:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Covering for me

I'll be away from my computer for about 7 weeks. Could you make sure no bureaucrat tasks go undone? I left a note on my talk page, but you might want to routinely check that as well. Thanks.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 11:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

A note for myself that 7 weeks is around August 7th--BirgitteSB 22:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

rename request

Hi, could you please rename my account[1]. Thanks, John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It's done but you will have some straightening out of SUL to do.--BirgitteSB 22:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Impostor account

I am typically "Thekohser" on all my active Wikimedia accounts. However, there appears to be an impostor of me here on Wikisource. What can you do about this? It is the only Wikimedia account named "Thekohser" that I have not been able to immediately unify under login. I think it's someone just yanking my (and your collective) chain. -- MyWikiBiz (talk) 14:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC) (But really, "Thekohser" -- the real one.)

I am not sure how the username could been created here unattached after you signed up for SUL. It should have been reserved. I am going to ask some more tech savvy people to look into it. The account does not seem to be doing any harm, so I think we can take our time resolving it.--BirgitteSB 15:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind you only registered SUL on 7/9 and this was created 7/2.--BirgitteSB 15:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry if I seemed not to be responsive. I went to save a message on the account's talk page and had lost my my internet connection. It just came back up now. I am going to usurp the account if there is no response to my message.--BirgitteSB 15:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds great. I appreciate your kind help. There's only one other guy in the country who's ever gone by "Thekohser" (a distant cousin), and I don't think Jim is editing Wikisource. Meanwhile, too bad that Wikisource isn't appropriate for my free blog post. -- MyWikiBiz (talk) 17:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Wycliffe's Bible

Hi, I believe there were 2 version 1389 and 1395 (??). Which did you upload to Wikisource? Thanks.

I am pretty certain I got it from this website, but it has been a longer time.--BirgitteSB 19:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

B'crat absence

Take a nice walk in the park;
nb: my pic

You recognize the park?
nb: my pic

Ouch.

Best wishes, Jack Merridew 13:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I spent the better part of last week trying to save the computer. First restoring it and then re-installing everything when it gave me start-up errors. Then after losing all my files to the fresh install and semi-working for a day; on Friday it finally admits that hard disk failure is eminent and I should back-up everything. Not what I planned on spending my money on, but I since I have spend the money anyways I wish I hadn't wasted the time. :( --BirgitteSB 18:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hard disks fail. It is very handy to have an external drive in a sleeve on a USB cable. I have several. I've had machines fail a bunch of times; recently, too. I lost nothing (except Windows;). Good luck, Jack Merridew 12:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I only had a few photos I'll miss. And the saved passwords in Firefox that I will have to spend time retrieving if I can't remember them or else I would have borrowed some backup equipment. I wanted to get it working sooner rather than wait and save everything but I got neither. Regarding the park, I recognized that it looked local. But I didn't recognize exactly where it was from redbuds, it is a rather large park! I most like the folly of ruins they have there. It seems so un-American to me. But maybe it should be even stranger to me that they built such things in Europe where such a sight need not be manufactured.--BirgitteSB 17:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for checking my talk page while I was away.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 17:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome.--BirgitteSB 13:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Username change

Hi there, friendly crat. I would like to change my username to User:UpstateNYer, since I've already done so at en:wiki, es:wiki, Commons, and Meta. Would you be able to help me out? UpstateNYer 21:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. You will have to remerge for SUL once all the renames are done.--BirgitteSB 18:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch! UpstateNYer 17:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Letter to the American People

Hey. Sorry for the delay. You asked me in my talk page about the translator of the work of bin laden, "letter to the american people". I'm afraid I am rarely found on wikisource.

I have a book by Bruce Lawrence that compiles works by Bin Laden, including that essay. I'm afraid it doesn't say the name of the translator. On the introduction of the essay, there is a note that says that it was first published on London's Observer on Novermber 24, 2002, after having been released on the website Al-Qala'h, on October 14, 2002. soory I couldn't be of any help. Cheers. Maziotis (talk) 17:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Martin Luther King

Hello! Russian Wikisource community need some help. Which copyright status in USA has the Martin Luther King's public speeches? -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 12:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

In particular "I Have a Dream" and "A Preacher Leading His Flock" -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 13:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

"I Have a Dream" is definitely still under copyright. All of the other others probably are as well. Anything written in advance from that time period is automatically copyrighted for the foreseeable future.--BirgitteSB 17:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm slightly confused. I see that Martin Luther King's Keep Moving From This Mountain is marked by Template:PD-manifesto. Is PD-manifesto based on some statements of USA copyright law? And how English Wikisource decide a dilemma: PD-manifesto or copyright violation? -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 10:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

If a speech was written out first and later a this writing was "performed" as and oration; it is copyrighted. This has been proven in court for "I Have a Dream". If he was however speaking more naturally it will not be copyrightable. It is however is nearly impossible to prove that something wasn't first written down; and that argument is especially shaky regarding someone known draft speeches in writing. Pd-manifesto was a bit of a catch-all for public letters and uncopyrightable stuff and over time is has accumulated some very questionable things. I wouldn't rely on anything from there without re-checking the research for yourself. Pd-manifesto is not based any special piece of US law. US law lists many things that ARE copyrighted and how the copyrights may expire and everything not described there is not protected copyright. So Public Domain is not something set out by US law so much as everything not covered by US law. We try to figure out everything the best we can, but many times people disagree especially where either the law or the facts about the text are unclear. --BirgitteSB 01:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

seen a loose bit around here?

Hi. I've asked for comments about me re-seeking that bit and the guy's are pleased.

• Wikisource:Administrator's noticeboard#Admin cleaning out accounts

It had nothing to do with this project, only that I see participation in WMF projects as of a piece.

I'm about to post a more temperate statement at:

• w:Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions/Jack Merridew one year unban review/mentors page

Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and, again, sorry for the drama. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)