Hello, Pbarnes, welcome to Wikisource! Thanks for your interest in the project; we hope you'll enjoy the community and your work here. If you need help, see our help pages (especially Adding texts and Wikisource's style guide). You can discuss or ask questions from the community in general at the Scriptorium. The Community Portal lists tasks you can help with if you wish. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page. --Benn Newman (AMDG) 20:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Influential Books ComplaintEdit

I have a serious concern about the "influential books" portal. I'm concerned that it is far too subjective to be meaningful and is esentially outside the scope of wikisource. What I mean is that this kind of editorializing by declaring which books you (or someone else for that matter) think to be influential is much too subjective and does not add to the purpose of wikisource. It sounds to me like a list of you or someone else's favorite books. By all means if you think a work is important and is not present at wikisource than add it, but having an "influential books" portal seems inappropriate to me. I think that your project insofar as it seeks to add influential books to the wikisource project is meaningful and worthwhile, it is only the idea of organizing books as "influential" that I object to. please respond in my talk page. Thank you --Metal.lunchbox 19:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The issue with the influential books portal is not a matter of whether I or someone else thinks that a particular book should or should not be included, but rather that the nature of the list falls outside the scope of wikisource. Whether or not we can refute the influence of the communist manifesto and origins of the species the very purpose of such a list is promotion and editorializing and not organization of content. Wikisource is not about what anyone THINKS about the content however irrefutable or common that opinion may be. Its about content and its organization. I hope is was a little clearer this time about the nature of my complaint. I certainly don't dissagree about whether or not those books are indeed highly influential. I should say that you've done a great job on the portal thusfar my previous complaint notwithstanding.--Metal.lunchbox 23:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, you've listed these works as public domain works. I'm curious as to how that would be the case, as they are only 57 years old and C. S. Lewis died in 1963. Is there any special information that would make it a public domain text that I might have missed? Thanks.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I won't contest that Lewis gave Vanauken the right to publish those letters in his book, but just because Lewis allowed for reproduction (which as the copyright holder is his prerogative), doesn't mean that Vanauken has the right to release those works from copyright protection, since he doesn't own the copyright at all. If he tried to do so, it would have been erroneous, and odds are the works were still protected. I can't find any information that Lewis himself released those works into the public domain.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 02:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Please see Wikisource:Possible_copyright_violations#Letters_to_Sheldon_Vanauken. Regards, Yann 23:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, you don't seem to have been here for nearly a year, but just in case you still look in occasionally, I've been wondering what the ticks mean after the name of each play in the First Folio. Thanks. Cowardly Lion 22:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. I found the answer in the Wikipedia article. (I should have thought of looking there in the first place!) Cowardly Lion 19:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Your account will be renamedEdit

23:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


06:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)