Formosa

Help choose next week's choice

The current community collaboration is collecting works related to the Eminent Women Series. Last collaboration: Slavery in the United States (1837)

Help choose next month's proofreading

The current Proofread of the Month is The Tower  (1928) by William Butler Yeats. Last month completed: Memoirs of the Lady Hester Stanhope The next scheduled collaboration will begin in May.

Welcome to Wikisource!

Now that you're here, you're probably wondering... Welcome! Thank you for joining Wikisource; we'd love for you to stick around and get more involved. We are a small community of approximately a hundred key people, with infinite help from random passersby. You might be wondering which of the two classes we consider you...well, I guess that's going to be up to you. You'll find we are our own little corner of the Wikimedia Foundation, free from all the drama, arguments and policy violations you may be used to seeing elsewhere. In fact, since we largely just republish exactly what others before us have already written, there is very little concern about "neutrality" for example. After all, if the text of a speech by Adolf Hitler is inflammatory and biased...wasn't that its purpose? If you're looking for a specific topic, you'll likely find it by navigating through Wikisource:Works, whether it's Portal:Islam or Portal:Mermaids. For overarching categories, you might be better looking at something like Category:Poems or Category:Novels. Of course, if you know the author's name, that's easiest of all, just plug in "Author:Rudyard Kipling" and you'll see everything he ever wrote (or was written about him!).

Chances are, you have a favourite subject we don't cover very well...here's how to change that! So, your favourite author or subject isn't very well represented on the project? Well as long as you make sure the texts fit the standards of Public Domain, you can add them yourself! (Like all rules, those are basic guidelines, if you want to play with exceptions to the rule, just ask any of the administrators for help) If the text doesn't already exist, just enter its name below and it will pre-load an editing page for you to set to work! Be sure to add {{no header}} to the top of the page, and then include categories so people can find it. If you can't think of any particular corners to improve on Wikisource, how about taking a look at Portal:Religious texts, Portal:Wars or Portal:Texts by Country for some ideas? Don't forget to list your contributions on those pages as well so others will find and read them in the future!

Reading when you want, how you want

Places to go, people to meet Well, if you've clicked all the way to this tab, you might as well plan on spending a few more hours acquainting yourself with our massive library. It's not perfect, sometimes there's an occasional misspelling or you'll see a text sorted incorrectly. So help us out, let us know, or fix it yourself! If you're bored and just wanting to grab a mop and bucket, then there are plenty of corners that need tidying. Works that need to be split into chapters, Works that need their licensing clarified, Works that need machine-read words corrected, Works that need page-numbers removed and Authors whose full names we don't know would all be a great place to start!

Help us out Scriptorium discussion IRC discussion Incomplete translations Possible Copyright Violations Pages for deletion Recent Changes

Yann (talk) 19:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Letter in The Times of 2 February 1955 concerning legal status of Formosa

I thank you for your contribution. However the letter is still under copyright (in the US, as that's where the servers are), as it wasn't published before 1923 and doesn't fall under one of the other exceptions. Please see Help:Public domain for more information on what is in the Public Domain.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Benedict XVI

Letters by Benedict XVI (a living author) would be seen to be under copyright unless there is a specific ruling to the different, hence for the moment it has been deleted. If you think that you can get a declaration that the letter is in the public domain and thus have a letter in OTRS, that would be fantastic and we can recover the work. There is some useful information at Help:Copyright. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Just being public doesn't make it public domain

I have deleted The Quest for Modernity as it is not a public domain document with regard to copyright. Please have a look at the links from Help:Copyright for further information. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Two-week deletion notice

Formosa, the two-week deletion notice generally doesn't apply to people who are actively contributing to Wikisource, like you. The notice is used to keep people from adding unlicensed work, and then disappearing for extended periods because they don't want to deal with the research involved. I don't think a new user has ever taken as many pains to comply with our license regulations as you have.

And just so you know, even if we did apply the rule strictly, deletion means that (1) only admins can access the work, and (2) there is a record whenever the text is accessed by an admin. Such works can be undeleted and the work restored--it doesn't get permanently erased. I hope this alleviates some of your worries, if that notice happened to cause some for you. ResScholar (talk) 04:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

ResScholar - On the first paragraph, thank you for the explanation; on the second paragraph, it is nice to have that explanation of what deletion means...though to be honest, its still a disappointment to me if what I put up cannot be read by the average reader (like myself, a non-Admin). Still, I fully accept the law of the land. If I am to be confident that my additions can be put up on the website, I may need to read up on US (California, I think(?, I will check) copyright law. Thanks. Formosa (talk) 23:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Customs of possible copyright violations

Because of particular circumstances of Wikisource, the customs we have on this website don't correspond exactly with the sense of the deletion page notice. Because we have a large backlog of cases to deal with, the prevailing custom of Possible Copyright Violations is to use the copyvio notice as a warning and to attract the possible violator to the Copyvio page.

The copyright violation refers to our website policy of only hosting "free" texts, not necessarily a violation of the law. It is probably not illegal to host them here once warning has been made and they are hidden from view, as the republication would be done by an individual disregarding the warning. In other cases it is probably even legal to post them openly, as we are, in certain specific cases, only making "fair use" of them in an academic type of setting.

Once the possible violator learns about the discussion page, they usually present a defense of their work, and it gets discussed by admins.

More often, what occurs is that an admin takes a work from our backlog, thinks about and presents the work along with reasons for deleting the work, though sometimes with the reasons implied through a sort of understood shorthand if the case is less difficult. This makes the case easier to archive since we don't know ahead of time in what month the case will be decided, and each case or whether one work or a series of similar works, can be understood independently of other cases.

Finally, we generally don't delete works immediately as there are factions on Wikisource who want to host more than "free" texts, and so they sometimes take the opportunity to stretch the "free" definition as far as possible. If we give them time to object, it prevents them from being able to complain later if the results aren't to their liking.

I hope this helps explain some of the behavior you may see at Possible Copyright Violations, and that it soothes your irritation if that is what I am seeing from you.

I personally appreciate the work you have done to find the works you have found that may violate the terms of "what Wikisource includes". The only other delay I should expect, apart from the one I described, is that of notifying the contributors of the removal if they wish to make a defense. ResScholar (talk) 05:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Double Standard

See my edit. Leave me a note if you need clarification or references. I think you are doing good to question the copyright of anything this not clear, and you are correct to ask for clarification when it is needed on policy. We can't always give you the answers because we don't always have them, if no one can give you an answer then the next step is to bring it to the community to see if consensus can be reached to update the policy. Keep in mind we are all (you, me and everyone here) volunteers sitting in front of our computers during our free time and trying to add the project. JeepdaySock (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

A friendly hint

Just a hint that the vast majority of users on this project know each other quite closely, and have ironed out their differences over the years. This means, while there is not a "cabal", people are likely to take offense when you act aggressively towards any user, even if it is not them...divide and conquer isn't quite as useful a strategy here as on other WMF projects. If you eased your tone a little, and would accept criticism without firing back at people trying to help you, it would go a long way towards ensuring your long-term acceptance on the project. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Thomas Carlyle.} 23:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

A friendly hint

User Sherucij left this message for me on my talk page - and because I think it relates to my contributions on this project page, I thought it as well to share it with all here. It has some marginal relevance to this project in so far as it seems to relate to how participants here should interact.

Just a hint that the vast majority of users on this project know each other quite closely, and have ironed out their differences over the years. This means, while there is not a "cabal", people are likely to take offense when you act aggressively towards any user, even if it is not them...divide and conquer isn't quite as useful a strategy here as on other WMF projects. If you eased your tone a little, and would accept criticism without firing back at people trying to help you, it would go a long way towards ensuring your long-term acceptance on the project. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Thomas Carlyle.} 23:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Re. "vast majority of users on this project know each other quite closely, and have ironed out their differences over the years." - I am not into personalities...not on the Internet....Rest assured, if I disagree with you, it does not mean that I have a bad opinion of your person. I do not know you.

Re. "This means, while there is not a "cabal", people are likely to take offense when you act aggressively towards any user, even if it is not them...divide and conquer isn't quite as useful a strategy here as on other WMF projects." As, I say, I am not about personalities. If you think I have done something that is in some way 'out of order', please be specific and I will certainly read what you say.

Re. "If you eased your tone a little, and would accept criticism without firing back at people trying to help you, it would go a long way towards ensuring your long-term acceptance on the project". This suggests that I have the wrong "tone" - What tone should participants have here....one wonders? To be honest, I do not really like your tone in that sentence. It seems a bit threatening. Its as if, if I do not change my tone, I will be kicked off this project? Maybe I am misinterpreting you there. As I say, if I have done anything in any way out of order, please be specific and tell me what it is. Generally, I prefer to stick to discussion of specific points related to the project though and not get bogged down in personality 'nit-picking' etc. Thanks. Formosa (talk) 13:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that is too rampant

You obviously have a bee in your bonnet, however, your actions are against the convention of acceptable actions at Wikisource. There is a nice way to go about having a discussion, and there is a wrong way. Careless application of the tag, incorrect application of the tag, and application of the tag without reference to other uses or the archives is not acceptable. I have blocked your account from editing for a few days until we can sort out where to from here. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC) test

From the above, I have no idea on what grounds I have been blocked here. You refer to "[c]areless application of the tag, incorrect application of the tag, and application of the tag without reference to other uses or the archives". Today I "tagged and hid" a number of works because they were tagged as "Edicts of Government". None of them were "Edicts of Government". In keeping with standard procedures in cases where the works are existing works, I tagged and hid them and set out my reasons for doing so on the discussion page. You have blocked me for doing this it seems. Why? Please be specific. What rules have I broken? What exact edits are in breach? I cannot defend myself here because you have blocked me. You have not even bothered to set out exactly what I have done wrong.Formosa (talk) 14:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Let us see in the space of an about an hour

• Started with bringing personal message to a wider forum
• Copyvio'd an author page edit
• Copyvio'd a national anthem, which generally are edicts of government
• Misapplied a copyvio that blocked the whole page
• Copyvio'd a South African government work that specifically said that it was put into the public domain by the licence
• Declared a conversation at Wikisource:Possible copyright violations at a point of time sufficient to just go and start adding copyvio all over the place

That seems sufficient enough to me for a temporary intervention. There is no urgency, there is no rampant need to place footprints everywhere. That is not the culture of this place, and you don't seem to want to listen to that either. Take a chill pill, there is no urgency, things will get sorted out by discussion. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Formosa responds....Going back on each point:

• Re. "Started with bringing personal message to a wider forum" - That is unfair. The message (which is on this talk page for those who wish to read it) related entirely to my participation in the copyright violations discussion page. It was at the very minimum connected to wider issues at the copyright violations page. It was certainly no great offense to publish it there so that it could be read by others who I interact with in the very same matters. Furthermore, when you took the view that it was not appropriate for the copyvio page, I accepted your judgment immediately. Accordingly, there is no breach of any rules.
• Re. "Copyvio'd an author page" - I copyvio'd a work - a photograph of a person (which was called an "Eict of Government") - the picture had no explanation otherwise as to its copyright position. I copyvio'd it and raised it for discussion. Please confirm how this action was in breach of any rules?
• Re. "Copyvio'd a national anthem, which generally are edicts of government" - Are you saying that this work was an "Edict of Government"? Please explain how this was an edict of government. It certainly does not fit within the guidance provided in respect of "Edicts of Government". Please confirm (a) if you believe this was an "Edict of Government"; (b) if yes, on what grounds; and (c) whether my taking the view that it is not an "Edict of Government" and bringing it for discussion was a breach of the Wikisource Rules?
• Re. "Misapplied a copyvio that blocked the whole page" - I do not know what work you are referring to. Please confirm what work this relates to and then I can respond.
• Re. "Copyvio'd a South African government work that specifically said that it was put into the public domain by the licence." - Please confirm that (a) you agree that the copyright information concerning this work expressly stated that it was an "Edict of Government"; (b) that you agree with me that it is not an "Edict of Government"; and (c) the fact that a work is in the public domain in one jurisdiction (in this case, South Africa) does not necessarily mean that it is in the public domain in another country (in our case, California). Having confirmed each of those matters, please confirm on what grounds my action was in any way in breach of any rules?
• Re. "Declared a conversation at Wikisource:Possible copyright violations at a point of time sufficient to just go and start adding copyvio all over the place". Please confirm: (a) what you mean by "declared"; (b) what "conversation" does this relate to; and (c) how what I did was in any way in breach of any rules?
• Re "That seems sufficient enough to me for a temporary intervention." If you provide responses to the questions above, at least the readers could see on what grounds you have blocked me. So far, you have not shown that I have breached any rules and I certainly believe I have behaved entirely appropriately.
• Re. "There is no urgency, there is no rampant need to place footprints everywhere. That is not the culture of this place, and you don't seem to want to listen to that either. Take a chill pill, there is no urgency, things will get sorted out by discussion." You need to be specific. You need to explain what rules I have breached. In my view, your action, appears to have been taken in bad faith. You have not shown how I have broken even one rule yet you have blocked me. I think you have blocked me because you regard me as 'trouble' - i.e. I have questioned your decisions. I do not think you have blocked me for breaching any rules or even for behaving in some way discourteously. I would be happy for you to show that this is not the case by showing what exact edits have breached exact WikiSource rules. When you refer to there being "no urgency" etc., that strikes me as being pretty cavalier about copyright. If a work is published here on this website that is in violation of the rights of a copyright holder, thats a pretty seriuous matter (whether you think so or not). Formosa (talk) 19:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• The specific edits should have been listed by billinghurst above, I am not sure if this edit (The last official proclamation of the Hungarian National Government during the Hungarian Revolution of 1956) is addressed above or in addition to. It does appear that Formosa's goal is disruption not improvement. JeepdaySock (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Formosa interjects: Can you adduce any evidence that my goal is "disruption". Unfortunately, copyright-rules doe "disrupt" publication of copyright-protected works on a website like this .... but that is not my fault. Formosa (talk) 12:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for not listing case by case though a simple perusal of your edits would have demonstrated the edits to work out which was which. There were circumstances that existed at the time, and maybe it was less than ideal, and I accept the point of view that it wasn't completely helpful, at the same time it wasn't rocket science and I reverted the troubling edits. If it had been one single issue I wouldn't have intervened, it was the collection as a whole, so while I will respond to your individual concerns, you need to reflect on the sum of the parts, not forensic analysis of the parts.

• To unfairness. It happened, and it happened within the timeframe. Personal messages do not belong on that page.
• You CV'd an author page of our construction, not a File: page
• See discussion on CV page, the anthem is old, and the translation is unsourced, it is not CV
• It is one of the list, not sure which now, however, it happened
• You seemingly stated that you blocked on the wording on the SA tag, not on the evaluation of the works
• The PD-GE conversation was on the page, and from a discussion point you thought that you could blithely go on a cross site hunt of pages, it seemed to be a churlish response to a discussion, and was not helpful and unnecessary at that point in time. Other examples of grouped discussions have not been handled that way previously, and casual examination would have exhibited this.
• Urgency. These are existing pages of duration and we can finish discussions, work out a place to be and a way forward. What we do deal with promptly is those new edits that are clearly CV and we speedy delete. Though I believe that this discussion has been had and I believe that you have been berating my actions in that regard, and pointedly identified my actions rather than to focus on the works themselves. If you want to have a discussion about personalisation of attitude and actions, that will be an interesting discussion, and the evidence on site will be interesting.
• Rules. Oh please don't start me on the discussion of rules. Take a step back and consider principle first from which rules are derived; rules don't exist in a vacuum. Rules are a concept set up to try and give guidance to a principle or to implement a policy, and can never cover every available circumstance and every avenue of approach. Some are mandatory, some can only be considered in the context of their specific environment, and can often be contradictory to other rules. We clearly set the principle for Wikisource, and have a convention in place though it may not be fully codified; we try to explain the convention of action at our site, and you choose to disagree or deny our convention and undertake your own actions. I stated my reasoning for my actions, your edits in that hour+ appeared to me to be disruptive, pre-emptory, and unnecessary for the time and place, and they did not seem to be taken in a positive and progressive manner to neither engender an open discussion nor to improve the site. It is a light and temporary measure and it was done to allow breathing time and discussion. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Formosa responds to Billinghurst and asks him (again!) to be specific, and explain what rules Formosa breached.

Re this “Apologies for not listing case by case though a simple perusal of your edits would have demonstrated the edits to work out which was which. There were circumstances that existed at the time, and maybe it was less than ideal, and I accept the point of view that it wasn't completely helpful, at the same time it wasn't rocket science and I reverted the troubling edits. If it had been one single issue I wouldn't have intervened, it was the collection as a whole, so while I will respond to your individual concerns, you need to reflect on the sum of the parts, not forensic analysis of the parts.” This sounds like more of the same – you are avoiding specifics: which of my edits broke rules?

• Re “ To unfairness. It happened, and it happened within the timeframe. Personal messages do not belong on that page.” I cannot add anything save what I said above – the message related to my role in the copyright page. Your view was that it was entirely personal. I felt it was useful to share it with other editors who collaborate with me on copyright issues. There was no rule breach.
• Re “You CV'd an author page of our construction, not a File: page”. You have ignored, once again, that I cv’d a work with a picture – there was no copyright statement concerning that picture. The hosting of that picture on this site may well be a copyright violation. You don’t bother with addressing this detail so I can only take it that you accept that I was right to cv it – but do not wish to admit as much.
• Re “See discussion on CV page, the anthem is old, and the translation is unsourced, it is not CV” – Once again, please explain what rule I have breached. If a discussion finds that there is no copyright violation, that is good and well. It does not mean that there was anything wrong in listing it there for discussion in the first place. In addition, you have ignored, as is your style, the detailed questions I asked you – e.g. to explain yourself as to how this is deemed an “Edict of Government” when other guidance provided would indicate it was not.
• Re “It is one of the list, not sure which now, however, it happened”. I do not know what you mean by this so I cannot respond.
• ”You seemingly stated that you blocked on the wording on the SA tag, not on the evaluation of the works”.Ditto – i.e. I do not know what you mean by this so I cannot respond. Please explain.
• Re “The PD-GE conversation was on the page, and from a discussion point you thought that you could blithely go on a cross site hunt of pages, it seemed to be a churlish response to a discussion, and was not helpful and unnecessary at that point in time. Other examples of grouped discussions have not been handled that way previously, and casual examination would have exhibited this.” First, what does the acronym “PD-GE” mean? Secondly, “you thought that you could blithely go on a cross site hunt of pages”. Please explain what I did and how it was a breach of the rules? Thirdly “Other examples of grouped discussions have not been handled that way previously, and casual examination would have exhibited this.” Please be specific? Please tell me which rules I have breached and in connection with which edits. You appear to be just slinging allegations without any back-up. If you sling enough allegations, other editors might well think you have a case....but you do not even bother to make your allegations specific......I am pretty repetitive here because I reiterate the same thing over and over. List the specific edit and explain how it breaches rules? Can you do that? I think not because you are aware I am not in breach of any rules.
• Re “Urgency. These are existing pages of duration and we can finish discussions, work out a place to be and a way forward.” What relevance does this have? How does my cv-ing a page inhibit us “working out” a way forward? I am following the exact procedures laid down – i.e. where a copyright question emerges, the procedure is to “tag and hide the page and list it for discussion”.

Re. “What we do deal with promptly is those new edits that are clearly CV and we speedy delete.” You appear to be suggesting that we should not act promptly in respect of copyright edits where the works area works that have been on the site for some time.....What sort of nonsensical thinking is this. A copyright violation is a copyright violation. They all deserve urgent attention. I have helped to do this. You take a cavalier attitude to copyright.

Re. “ Though I believe that this discussion has been had and I believe that you have been berating my actions in that regard, and pointedly identified my actions rather than to focus on the works themselves. If you want to have a discussion about personalisation of attitude and actions, that will be an interesting discussion, and the evidence on site will be interesting.” I have no interest in personalities. I have stated as much before. You have singled me out and blocked me. I would welcome adequate explanations from you as to which specific edits breached which specific rules. Thats what I ask you to do.

Re “*Rules. Oh please don't start me on the discussion of rules. Take a step back and consider principle first from which rules are derived; rules don't exist in a vacuum. Rules are a concept set up to try and give guidance to a principle or to implement a policy, and can never cover every available circumstance and every avenue of approach. Some are mandatory, some can only be considered in the context of their specific environment, and can often be contradictory to other rules. We clearly set the principle for Wikisource, and have a convention in place though it may not be fully codified; we try to explain the convention of action at our site, and you choose to disagree or deny our convention and undertake your own actions. I stated my reasoning for my actions, your edits in that hour+ appeared to me to be disruptive, pre-emptory, and unnecessary for the time and place, and they did not seem to be taken in a positive and progressive manner to neither engender an open discussion nor to improve the site. It is a light and temporary measure and it was done to allow breathing time and discussion. “ This is certainly revealing. You cannot find any rules that I have breached. In fact, you know that I have merely being following the rules....but following the rules could be called "disruptive". My following the rules does not suit your cavalier attitudes to copyright. 12:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Inductiveload intercedes

Hi! I'm responding here to a message asking for comment on my talk page. I have not taken too much interest in this matter, but these are my personal feelings. Wikisource is a generally quiet project, where people get on with their own things. It is not a busy, noisy project like Wikipedia, and it is not flooded with copyvios like Commons. Both of those projects require constant vigilance against copyvios, fair use, etc, and so they have stringent deletion processes for them. Wikisource is more laid back, due to to the lower (and generally higher quality) traffic of edits we get. Thus we have a more relaxed process, especially when the works have been around a while.

Officially, of course, we should delete everything quickly. However, WS:PD is not a busy page like Commons Deletion Requests is, and often the notices will go uncommented for a long time. This doesn't mean that there are no objections, it just means that an objector hasn't arrived yet. We only have 342 active users and 39 sysops, comments come slower here.

If a work is old, it may be dodgy for a number of reasons, among them: the license templates hadn't been made back then, the copyright policy wasn't formalised, copyright renewal records weren't online, no-one had written up the world's copyright rules, etc. Considering that the contributor may well not be among the 342 active users, we're unlikely to get a reply soon. Also the work has survived here for however many year, implies that there may be a reason to keep it. We don't jump on these things like Commons does, because we are not snowed under with them! If a work is new, we can contact the user and ask for an explanation of the reasoning behind the free licencing.

I do not think that your block was unjustified, it was very short, and you were causing a problem by clogging up WS:CV with dubious copyvio notices (some of author pages). The only thing I would say is that you weren't told how much we don't appreciate that behaviour here. Like Billinghurst said, relax, this is Wikisource! It takes more time to get things done here, and that is part of the charm. Licensing unlicensed works, and hunting copyvios is valuable work and I appreciate that you were doing it. The difference between commons and Wikisource, is that Commons tags first and asks later in the DR, Wikisource may ask first and then tag based on the upshot. Also, it seems to me that this spree was precipitated by having your own work deleted, and you then sought vengeance, or at least similar fates, for similar works. This is not appropriate behaviour here, we don't appreciate the kind of rampancy that may make a good Commons CV hunter! Short blocks are quite liberal here, because we don't have the staff to police the site against disruptive edits. We certainly don't have the staff to sustain your rate of CV tagging.

The argument on WS:CV was totally against our community ethos here. You do not start trying to divide support like that here. People came to you with answers and you told them "yes or no?" and ignored the answers. That's not how any Wikisource policy or even copyright works in the real world. It's usually "yes, but" or "no, except", or "maybe, but consider...". You need to learn to be less rigid in the application of rule here. Other Wikis have hard-and-fast rules that are set in stone, us, not so much. If you want to start repeating your WS:CV performance, I suggest you leave Wikisource now.

I think it would be in your own best interests to forget about this unpleasant episode, find something to quietly get on with and maybe come on IRC for a chat if you want to get to know some of us. If you contribute well, no-one will even care you were blocked for a couple of days way-back-when. People here don't hold grudges, they don't politick and they don't argue endlessly about personal slights. If you want to do that, I recommend en.WP. If you want to be part of a small, relaxed and easily cooperating community, drop any attitude from Commons or en.WP and jump in! I have no real interest in continuing this discussion - those are my feeling and recommendation to you on how to get past this, and if you choose to take them, I will see you around! I truly hope you can become part of our team, Inductiveload—talk/contribs 16:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I was going to give a detailed response - but really your approach can be summed up as 'rules don't matter - just don't clog up the copyright violations page and because you did, your block was deserved'. Its not an impressive approach. Your reference to me making 'dubious' listings on the copyright violations page - you specifically refer to my tagging and hiding an author page - is utterly without basis too. Like Billinghurst, you (intentionally?) ignore, the point I have repeatedly made in respect of that work - there is a photograph on that page that has no copyright information. You suggest that: (i) I should somehow "relax"; (ii) that "it takes more time to get things done here"; and (iii) that I should be "less rigid in the application of rule[s]". That, of course, is such nonsense - Have you ever bothered to check out how many works I personally contributed over many months that in the space of one or two days (things can happen very quickly indeed on this website!!!!) Billinghurst "tagged and hid" (he did not bother to list them for discussion)? It was certainly a few. That was what initally brought me to the copyright violations page. He sure took a "rigid" approach to my work here.....He even deleted (without any "hiding and tagging" or discussion on the copyright violations page) a work that it now appears (from discussion) was absolutely fine to host on this website [incidentally, I am referring to a speech by a Taiwan politician]. Yet you suggest, I should "relax" etc....I am for fairness and equality. If a high standard is applied to the works of one user on this website, lets apply the same high standard to all. I also respect copyright law and have no problem with complying with it. I broke no rules and Billinghurst, by blocking me, has acted disgracefully - and I bet he knows it. The fact you do not name a rule I have broken suggests you too must know Billinghurst has done something wrong. Another point is that you miss the point that my discussions on the copyright violations page (like that about Edicts of Government and the basic principle of who is responsible for copyright - help bring clarity to this area). These issues are not big mysteries. From discussions, a simple guide could be prepared that would make complying with copyright much more clear cut for all. In the end, it would reduce the administrative burden on editors and admins too - even if in the short term, it generated quite a few listings on the copyright violations page. Formosa (talk) 18:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know all the gritty details of this dispute, but I do know that if all you got out of Inductiveload's message was "your approach can be summed up as 'rules don't matter - just don't clog up the copyright violations page and because you did, your block was deserved'," you completely missed its point. This is not a rule-based project in which robots make decisions based on those rules. The rules here were developed by people working together. By people working together will those rules be enforced, not by lone rangers attacking everyone and everything in order to make a point.

Speaking of which, you might review WP:POINT. If you don't like the way something works, the way you change it is to work with people. If you are unsuccessful in effecting the change you desire, you have two options—deal with it, or leave. I've experienced this many times on Wikipedia, Wikisource, and in real life, and most of the time I've found that "deal with it" is the best option. The reason I edit very little on Wikipedia now is because I found the latter option preferable several times. It's a decision only you can make. A third "option"—disrupting a peaceful project because you're pissed at someone or something (justifiably or not)—will lead to you being blocked, as you have found. —Spangineer^wp {{{1}}} 19:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Re. Spangineer - "I don't know all the gritty details of this dispute..." It certainly sounds like you couldn't be bothered with finding out the details either....Remember, the devil lies in the detail. I guess its laziness like yours that means Internet projects like this probably won't work for persons, like me, who are bothered with details. Basic 'details' like fair play. Formosa (talk) 19:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• Caution: aggressive commentary on other users is unacceptable, especially given the amount of patient attention and advice you have received. Discussion on how the site can be improved, and others issues on content, are very welcome. Your contributions have been disruptive and this account may be blocked to prevent that. I hope you can help to provide solutions instead. Cygnis insignis (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Willing to work with you

Formosa, I am willing to work with you to do add PD works, as you bring an area of interest that is specific to you, and not one that others have. However, to do this we both need to understand that this is a two-way street.

So to take a step back and explain about the us that is Wikisource. We work here as a team of people with a common goal. The basis of that is that we attempt to position ourselves with the attitude of respect for each other and what they bring to the team and the works that they bring. We try to appreciate difference. We also work very hard to be inclusive and to not be argumentative as wikis tend to be.

We work on having governing principles with these setting out the basis of how and what we undertake. With that it enables latitude as we assume good faith on our contributors, subsequently we do not wish to make this a prescriptive rules-based site. If that is a bit cryptic, in essence it means that if we do something, and someone doesn't like what we are doing, then we stop and explore the matter. This enables us to understand the other person, and it really builds good working relationships. It is about practising good faith. Here it is important to just stop and listen, especially with the language and cultural differences.

• To use a sporting analogy, we play the ball, not the player and to this stage your approach seems to be about the person, and not about the subject matter. At the same time, being humans, we know that it happens and we have to manage it.

Now, some of our negotiation tends to be slow and ponderous. Some of the decision-making often harks back to an earlier decision that is hidden away in archives. The discussion is about the principles and therefore transferable to other works. This builds our operating convention, under the basis of our governing principles, and subsequently you often won't find it as a codified rule.

Now understanding that there has been a dispute, in which a few parties have some bruises, can we stop, think and look forward. We have neither wish nor plan to stop you contributing public domain works. We do wish for your contributions to the community to be positive and in concert with our approach discussed above, at the same time, we still want you to be you, not our clones.

I have now had my say, and I would like for you to have yours. My request to you though would be that we look to discuss this in a forward-looking perspective, though obviously with the experience of hindsight. So to hear your points without trying to concentrate on specific people. There will be things that people have done that have upset you and to mention those events is okay, how it impacted upon you is okay, however, to attribute how and why they did those actions is probably not.

Anyway, over to you. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Having read just the above, it seems like we lost a productive contributor because of the (long-since-expired) block in question. How could we get the user back? Well, I can say I'm sorry to read that we seem to have lost a productive contributor because of the block in question, years ago. I can say to Formosa: I don't see that you violated any rules. I think you're right - technically - why should you have been blocked, then? Surely its not fair to be punished for not following unwritten rules (Such poignancy, as you were discussing Edicts of Government and the essential reason they're PD: unwritten rules aren't fair!) I see that billinghurst blocked you because s/he thought it would be best for the project for you to stop and listen and have patience, and resorted to blocking you to make that happen. Can you accept that billinghurst had good intentions? If billinghurst were to reaffirm that he had the best of intentions, but apologize for essentially blocking you for not following unwritten rules, per IAR, would you return to the project? The only practice that comes close to “expunging” of block records, as far as I know, is the addition of an apology to the block log. --Elvey (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)