User talk:Calebjbaker

An Analysis of Prophet Muhammad’s Covenants with Christians

I have been through and done a hack on the more difficult and WS-quirky components, especially the means to attach the references which are there as endnotes. I have a text replacement script that makes the {{ref}} easily, so feel to leave those if you don't wish to fiddle there. It will all come together when transcluded. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance with this project, and for introducing me to the quote and ref functions. I should be done formatting text today, so then you can run your ref script on it. I look forward to printing out a pdf when we're done and actually reading the thing.. I like articles with >100 references. -calebjbaker (talk) 19:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletions

Regarding your recent requests, next time you can move the page instead of creating a new one and deleting the old one. So history will be preserved.— Mpaa (talk) 20:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

In order to get your requests satisfied, you need to fix rferences for pages you want to delete (see 'What links here' link in the left column for each page). At least in he more important namespaces.— Mpaa (talk) 20:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, Mpaa, moving a page sounds easier than the process I used. And I'll be sure to check What Links Here in the futures. calebjbaker (talk) 00:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Journal articles

This isn't in Cat:Periodicals because (a) articles aren't Periodicals, and (b) our basic category structure follows that of the Library of Congress. This is why there is a bit of text connecting the two instead one one being a subcategory of the other. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I understand now. Sorry I changed it twice, I had forgotten that I tried to do this yesterday already and didn't notice it had been removed. calebjbaker (talk) 05:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Index:Syntax for the Digital Object Identifier ： An American National Standard developed by the National Information Standards Organization.pdf‎

Are you sure this is by a US Gov entity?, The information about NISO seemed to suggest they are a non-profit organisation, but not a federal govt entity. This has caught out people before. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, good question. My assumption was that it was but in looking at http://www.niso.org/about/ I see it is not. I will change the copyright designation. pdf/2 states "this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without prior permission in writing from the publisher, provided it is reproduced accurately, the source of the material is identified, and the NISO copyright status is acknowledged" so thankfully it is an allowable source text. calebjbaker (talk) 21:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Upon further review, NISO documents are NC ND (non-commercial no derivatives) so I'm screwed. I really wanted to provide access to this text on Wikisource. Oh, well, I guess I'll request a speedy delete. calebjbaker (talk) 21:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

That would appear wise, I know it's infuriating "standards" aren't freely distributable.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:05, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Requesting permission for a brief rant: These standards are freely distributable, just not via Wikimedia Foundation web properties since it would take so much effort and cause a tsunami of Wikicultural dissonance if non-commercial no derivatives works were allowed. Half the journal articles I want to post are nc-nd. It seems a middle ground could be found that encourages dissemination of texts while allowing creators to retain integrity of substance by designating no derivatives. After my short time spent as a contributor, I've concluded that Wikisource is the Free Library of Radically Open Access Publishers. If nc-nd works were allowed, Wikisource would simply be the Free Library of Open Access Publishers and would stand to fulfill its desire to be a destination digital collection through temperance of its activists-only philosophical extremism. calebjbaker (talk) 22:33, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

As we know, NISO is not a government agency. However, the similarly-named NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology http://nist.gov/) is a government agency falling under the US Department of Commerce, and they've got lots of interesting documents like the 2-week-old Catalyzing the Internet of Things and Smart Cities ： Global City Teams Challenge. calebjbaker (talk) 12:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

You can move pages

You can move instead of 'create with new name' and 'delete the old one'. See top right tab (More menu).— Mpaa (talk) 17:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I see where it is, thanks for the time-saving tip. calebjbaker (talk) 17:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Academicians Category

Hi, can you please indicate what you mean by the term "academicians"? I'm not sure that you define it in the same way that I understand the term. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

'An academic; an intellectual' (mid 18th century: from French académicien, from medieval Latin academicus) https://www.google.com/search?q=academician&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 I prefer the more general term academician over the narrower word academic because the former includes intellectuals not part of an academic institution and cannot be confused with the more commonly used adjectival applications of the latter. Another synonym used to identify one who does institution-based research (writes journal articles) is scholar. calebjbaker (talk) 12:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I suspected so. The problem is that the more widely used definition is about being a member of an academy, such as the Royal Society. See w:Academician. We've customarily put academics under their actual specialisation. e.g. Category:Physicists, Category:Ecologists, and Category:Sociologists. (There is also Category:Professors, which I personally don't like as it lends a US-bias to the categories. I know several senior academics in New Zealand and Australia who do not hold professorships, but are widely published and respected within their fields.) Could you see your way to moving these people across into the Category:Authors by occupation tree? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:25, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree that professor is too narrow a term for the class of author that I'm trying to capture with this category. I would prefer to stick with academician (even if the intellectual is not a member of a sanctioned 'academy') or switch the term to scholars because I consider a second round of classification into field of research as you have suggested to be overclassification for the intent of the category that was created. The intent is to have one category name that captures anyone who contributes to a scholarly journal. Feel free to switch the category name to scholars if you'd like, or let me know if you concur and I can do it. calebjbaker (talk) 11:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Hmm

Hi Caleb, I happened upon Record of Oregon Sales Tax Increase from 0 to 25％: A Receipt, and I can't see how this matches up with WS:What Wikisource includes. Am I missing something? -Pete (talk) 00:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

This is probably a better link: Wikisource:What_Wikisource_includes/rewrite#Notable -Pete (talk) 00:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I have proposed deletion here: Wikisource:Proposed_deletions#Record_of_Oregon_Sales_Tax_Increase_from_0_to_25.EF.BC.85:_A_Receipt -Pete (talk) 22:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Deletion discussion, FYI

Hi, I started this discussion. I think it's a pretty straightforward situation, but wanted to let you know. -Pete (talk) 00:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)