Hello, Nonexyst, and welcome to Wikisource! Thank you for joining the project. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:


You may be interested in participating in

Add the code {{active projects}}, {{PotM}} or {{CotW}} to your page for current wikisource projects.

You can put a brief description of your interests on your user page and contributions to another Wikimedia project, such as Wikipedia and Commons.

I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikisource, the library that is free for everyone to use! In discussions, please "sign" your comments using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question here (click edit) and place {{helpme}} before your question.

Again, welcome! Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Page statusEdit

If you have read and formatted a page to what you believe is a reliable rendition of the image, then please do move the page status marker from "not proofread" (red) to "proofread" (amber). If you have any questions WS:Scriptorium/Help is a great space, or pop past my talk page. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I see that you have been looking at my follow-up editing. Nice! A little pointer about some tricks with {{smaller block}} and {{smaller block/s}}. These templates are variant of the same formatting, with the difference being the former is closed (and contained within a Page:) and the latter is open (and used when spanning Page:s). The importance of these will be apparent when the work is transcluded into the main namespace, and pulled together. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:13, 9 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for this tip, I'll try to follow it :) — Nonexyst (talk) 11:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Index:Avon Fantasy Reader 11 (1949).pdfEdit

Can you provide a list of where you've actually checked for renewals on each work? (i.e Years and search terms.) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ShakespeareFan00: The dates of the first publications are listed in the contents. I checked whether there were earlier publications at isfdb.org and philsp.com and did not find anything. Then I searched databases listed in Template:PD-US-no-renewal, adding 27–28 to the year of first publication. Nonexyst (talk) 06:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just discovered here is said that Bradbury's story copyright was renewed in '75, but I can't find any record of it that year. Here is listed a 1974 publication. Nonexyst (talk) 07:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Usually you have to chek about 3 years to be really certain. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ShakespeareFan00: In this case I checked out '74–'77 records for Bradbury story, so does it mean that '74 or any other re-publication renews its copyright? I'll recheck other stories soon. Nonexyst (talk) 10:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Depends. You'd have to check the records for the specific publication, as I understood it, the issue was 'new material', If its the exact same text as a version that had expired (wasn't renewed) then ... ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ShakespeareFan00: Well, the 74' publication was by Penguin Books, UK, so I finally conclude that I can't find any signs that the work's copyright was renewed. Nonexyst (talk) 10:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Usually with index pages (fyi)Edit

This is a comment. Usually with index pages like The Gall Wasp Genus Cynips: A Study in the Origin of Species/Index we won't both with the columnar form, and will instead just make a longitudinal transclusion/list. A column split and the need to scroll back up doesn't make much sense on a web page, and it can play gyp with page numbers on occasions. When we do use longitudinal approach, we will often then use something like {{anchor}} to add links to the start of each alphabet character, eg. {{anchor}}, then in the notes section utilise a template like {{TOC}}, or something else relevant in Category:TOC templates. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Proposal Notification - Replacement of common main-space header templateEdit

Announcing the listing of a new formal proposal recently added to the Scriptorium community-discussion page, Proposals section, titled:

Switch header template foundation from table-based to division-based

The proposal entails the replacement of the current Header template familiar to most with a structurally redesigned new Header template. Replacement is a needed first step in series of steps needed to properly address the long time deficiencies behind several issues as well as enhance our mobile device presence.

There should be no significant operational or visual differences between the existing and proposed Header templates under normal usage (i.e. Desktop view). The change is entirely structural -- moving away from the existing HTML all Table make-up to an all Div[ision] based one.

Please examine the testcases where the current template is compared to the proposed replacement. Don't forget to also check Mobile Mode from the testcases page -- which is where the differences between current header template & proposed header template will be hard to miss.

For those who are concerned over the possible impact replacement might have on specific works, you can test the replacement on your own by entering edit mode, substituting the header tag {{header with {{header/sandbox and then previewing the work with the change in place. Saving the page with the change in place should not be needed but if you opt to save the page instead of just previewing it, please remember to revert the change soon after your done inspecting the results.

Your questions or comments are welcomed. At the same time I personally urge participants to support this proposed change. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RE: Index:Joseph Payne Brennan - H. P. Lovecraft, An Evaluation.pdfEdit

I'm unsure if I should Validate all of the pages because the title page is written in an unfirmiliar format, with black text on a red background. The transcription is accurate, but somewhat hard to read with the naked eye. How would you proceed? Legofan94 (talk) 20:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Legofan94: Well, I don't know… I have too little experience in validation. --Nonexyst (talk) 20:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your help at Author:Leonard Simon NimoyEdit

Thanks for your help at Author:Leonard Simon Nimoy.

Much appreciated,

-- Cirt (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Page:Queen Mab (Shelley).djvu/266Edit

Thanks for catching that! The Haz talk 23:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I don't have access to the ticket, so it must be permissions-en queue, which to the this point of time I have not sought access. I will see if I can get someone with access to add a note here for you, or contact you via email. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:30, 11 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think better via email, as OTRS being confidential.--Nonexyst (talk) 23:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This ticket seems to relate to the cover art of the works, and not to the works themselves. The determination for the covers being that for the works of the author that Gold Medal covers are in the public domain, and the understanding is that all of the cover art used on the current Cleis Press editions is in copyright. How that relates to the copyright of the works is not determined in the ticket and would need to separately explored though may be a useful indicator by looking at the copyright details in the works and any renewals that may have been undertaken.

The contact details are confidential, the specific contents of the email are a record and able to be discussed or summarised. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Addendum, if the Gold Medal works were determined as being in the public domain for overt reasoning, I would think that we would reference this ticket as evidence. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If so, better to place an explanation given in the ticket here. As Moonriddengirl wrote, "Lapse of copyright confirmed by book author, Ann Bannon.", so I thought it relates to the whole book. If You didn't gain access yet, I'll ask that user for it.--Nonexyst (talk) 00:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did gain access and read the multiple emails in ticket, and have moved it back to whence it came. The synopsis is as described, as the ticket was about the cover art. The works of the author will need a separate analysis or contact with the author who seems to interact via her facebook page (as per 2010). — billinghurst sDrewth 02:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for help. After looking into the copyright databases, the original Gold Medal editions of author's books seems to be not renewed, I also asked the author to be more sure.--Nonexyst (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi, now that the pdf file has been deleted at Commons, what needs to happen to the mainspace pages, the Index and the pages in the Page namespace? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Beeswaxcandle: Can we delete these pages now and restore them in 2019, when the copyright expires? --Nonexyst (talk) 08:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can certainly delete them now. They will be restorable in 2019, but that will depend on remembering that it needs to happen and nudging an admin at that time. Sometimes it's quicker to just re-create from scratch. I'll get onto the deletions now. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Beeswaxcandle: No problem, maybe some pages are better to restore, some to recreate, as I have an epub export.--Nonexyst (talk) 09:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sounds a sensible approach to take. If I'm still around at the time, just ping me. It's now all deleted, but I put a tag on the mainspace and Index that will be out of copyright in 2019, so that you can get another admin to help if I'm not available. Cheers, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Butterfly ManEdit

I saw that source, but everything else I read said 1960s so I assumed that was a typo as they don't list why that date was chosen. The Haz talk 13:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Other resources I've seen were catalogues which provide little info on publication, listing the date as 196? or 1960 (I think they even could write end of 1950s in such way, some sources confuse this with Universal Publishing reprint of 1967), though some of them give 1949 or even 1945 (Abe's books). The most reliable source for me seems to be the published book.--Nonexyst (talk) 13:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About "US copyright for non US works, some questions"Edit


Не так давно (вы может быть ещё помните) вы участвовали в одной открытой мной теме на форуме здесь, в английской Викитеке, сейчас она находится в архиве -- Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help/Archives/2015#US copyright for non US works, some questions. Я прошу прощения, так как, как выяснилось для меня недавно, вы тогда были правы когда писали:

Nigmont: It is true for rehabilitations occurred in 1996 and on, rehabilitations between 1946 and 1995 made the works protected by copyright at the time of the URAA date, so their copyrights were restored by URAA.

А я тогда ошибся, когда стал утверждать что такого закона на URAA-дату ещё не было. Не так давно стал более внимательно смотреть закон 09.07.1993 № 5351-1 (текст в русской Викитеке), и увидел в статье 27, что там уже было:

В случае, если автор был репрессирован и реабилитирован посмертно, то срок охраны прав, предусмотренный настоящей статьей, начинает действовать с 1 января года, следующего за годом реабилитации.

На форуме Викитеки я уже написал про эту свою ошибку (тема, в которой мы это обсуждали, уже ушла в архив, пришлось в архив добавить коммент -- хоть и не рекомендуется так делать но надеюсь админы простят), чтобы не вводило в заблуждение читателей; и сейчас осталось только вас проинформировать, что я и делаю. Так что, ещё раз извиняюсь за невольное введение вас (и других участников) в заблуждение. Беда с этими копирайтными законами... --Nigmont (talk) 18:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Changes to Happy Prince indexEdit

Hi. Cheers for the second proofreading, but would you mind undoing those changes to the pages. Thanks, CYGNIS INSIGNIS 15:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Molecular Phylogenetics and EvolutionEdit

Elsevier states that articles in in this journal are under copyright. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:43, 5 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Never mind. I found where the CC license was nested at the end of the abstract. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:52, 5 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Updating PD templatesEdit

There is a discussion about this topic at the top of the Wikisource:Scriptorium. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:58, 1 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Can you check when adding someone to Wikidata if they are already in there? I've seen a couple where the ISFDB field was flagged as being duplicated and hence there was an obvious duplicate.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:07, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi. Please could you use templates like {{smaller}} rather than the html code <small>, and the like. We are trying to utilise modern css wherever reasonable and practicable. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok. I normally do, with the exception to the pages where HTML tags have long been untouched. --Nonexyst d 18:38, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Untangling the WebEdit

Hello Nonexyist, since you started the article, I was wondering what happened to it. Thank you for your time. Cheers :-) Lotje ツ (talk) 08:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I simply lost my interest. --Nonexyst d 19:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]