User talk:Jan.Kamenicek

Lines joined

Lines Joined, is there an instant way to do this without fifty keystrokes? Fundy Isles Historian - J (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, there is, although sligthly complicated in the beginning–you need to add the following line to your your common.js page:

mw.loader.load('//en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jan.Kamenicek/PageCleanUp.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');

As a result you should get a new button above the editing window in the page namespace. Whenever you click that button, it will do some autocorrections, including joining the lines.

For details see Wikisource:Tools and scripts#PageCleanUp. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Be nice if a bot did that for all the DJVUs. Added it in the meantime, not sure if you were the person who showed me <center> vs {{center}} but either way, I'm learning. Would love a quick drive-by help for the two works I'm currently trying to get at least readable if you have a chance. Fundy Isles Historian - J (talk) 22:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Great, you are learning well. I had a look e. g. at Page:Smiling isle of Passamaquoddy .. (IA smilingisleofpas00thom).pdf/16 where I corrected the way of inserting the image. However, it would be good to improve the image itself too, especially to cut off the caption from the image, which should be transcribed as text instead, see e. g. at Page:The Czechoslovak Review, vol3, 1919.djvu/44. If you won't do it, it can stay like that for some time, but having the caption as text would be much better. If you decide to edit the image, you may also consider its decolouring. The image is supposed to be black and white, the yellowish colour is not the colour of the image itself, it is the colour of the paper, which we usually remove. It is not a crucial thing, so I will leave it up to you.

The page Page:Smiling isle of Passamaquoddy .. (IA smilingisleofpas00thom).pdf/3 is really tricky, I think you will certainly need help with this, so I will try to do it when I have time. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I left the caption on the image since historical images of these places are likely also of use on Wikipedia or other projects, but I see what you mean about the yellowing...is there a handy button/tool to do it automatically before/after uploading? Fundy Isles Historian - J (talk) 20:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Ad caption: I see. In that case the picture can be uploaded twice–with and without the caption–and Wikisource can use the one without. Ad yellow colour: We do not have any tool for that, but most common graphics editors have some option of image decolouring, e. g. in Photoshop it is called "desaturate". --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

The self-published translations

Would he be allowed to put them bor speedy deletion under author's request ? -- Beardo (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Hm, I did not think about this possibility. Probably a good solution, to stop the useless discussion. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Constitution of Serbia

Why did you delete it was the official translation which is in PD No.cilepogača (talk) 17:26, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

For the copyright discussion see Wikisource:Copyright_discussions/Archives/2024#Constitution_of_Serbia (click "show discussion" on the right). What do you mean by "official translation"? Do you have any information where and by who it was originally published? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:09, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

It was published by the Official Gazette and can be found here and is under public domain because that translatio is considered official No.cilepogača (talk) 23:46, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I am afraid that the link which you provided contains only a small part of the text, not the full text, which is behind a paywall accessible for paying subscribers only. At the bottom of the page that you linked to there is a copyright note: ©2009–2005 — Службени гласник РС. The publisher Sluzhbeni Glasnik seems to be a business company according to https://www.slglasnik.com/sites/default/files/pdf/o_nama/podaci-o-preduzecu.pdf . There is no sign of the English translation having been published under a free licence. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:02, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, Article 6 of Law on Copyright and Related Rights says:

The protection of copyright shall not apply to general ideas, procedures and methods of operations or mathematical concepts as such, as well as concepts, principles and instructions included in a work of authorship.

The following shall not be deemed works of authorship:

1) Laws, decrees and other regulations;

2) Official materials of state bodies and bodies performing public functions;

3) Official translations of regulations and official materials of state bodies and bodies performing public functions;

4) Submissions and other documents presented in the administrative or court proceedings.

The same translation is available on Republic Electoral Commission website here. This definitely is an official translation of regulations.

No.cilepogača (talk) 13:05, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I am afraid that the text you have just linked to is different from the version that was deleted. Somebody has linked to this version in the previous copyright discussion, and I have pointed out the differences there too. So we cannot undelete the text based on this source, because the texts are not identical.

In fact, it is quite common that constitutions of states are being updated, and so they can have more versions. Wikisource distinguishes the versions and can host all of those whose translations are proven to be in the public domain. (Constitutions as such are usually in the public domain automatically, but that does not apply to their translations, where it must be proven that the translation was made by the government officials too).

So, if the text you have linked too is proven to be in public domain, the page can be recreated with that text (but not with the text that was deleted, as it was different).

If you still believe that the previous text should be undeleted, please explain at WS:Copyright discussions#Undelete Constitution of Serbia. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:01, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Difference between is probably because someone added amendment I-XXIX added in 2022. Venice Commission gave an opinion on final draft for both 2006 Constitution and Amendment I-XXIX. As far as I know it's the government responsibility to provide the translation to the Venice Commission, so the translation must have been done by the government officials. No.cilepogača (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

So, the deleted text is probably the unamended version, for which we do not seem to have any source at the moment. The source you provided contains amended version, and really seems to be in public domain. Thus, the amended version can be added here. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:53, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

It's the other way deleted text was amended version. Republic Electoral Commission host unamended version (idk why) Official Gazette has amended version but you can find Amendment on Ministy of Justice website here and Venice Commission website here No.cilepogača (talk) 13:46, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Anyway, it was different from the source that you linked too. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I have started an undeletion discussion at WS:Copyright discussions#Undelete Constitution of Serbia to get more opinions on this. You can join the discussion there too. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:33, 23 February 2025 (UTC)