User talk:Tarmstro99/Archives/2007

Welcome to Wikisource

Hello, Tarmstro99/Archives/2007, 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 01:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

And thanks for your interest in 17 U.S.C.! it hasn't gone unnoticed and is very welcome. Physchim62 15:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The Holocaust: The Jewish Tragedy

• Hi, you added the copyvio tag on the Holocaust: the Jewish tragedy book. However, I have explained that I have written to Martin Gilbert and obtained his permission to publish it on Wikisource.--Andrew 2007 15:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Please, I have just explained that I have obtained copyright permission from the author. And I hope once you realise it is not a copyvio, that I will be able to retrieve the hours of typing I had to do to put the book up there--Andrew 2007 15:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

so noted at WS:COPYVIO. Further discussion belongs there, not on this talk page. —Tarmstro99 15:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

adding copyvio tag

Hi, Tarmstro99,

Thank you for your work with tagging some possible copyvios. I'd like to ask that instead of you removing all content on the page and replacing it simply with "{{copyvio}}" to just add the copyvio template at the top of the page. It will then keep all the text from being displayed (meaning only the copyvio template will show up) but it allows users to easily browse the content of the page without having to dig through its history.

Thanks!—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 17:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Understood, will do. I think I misunderstood the instructions on WS:COPYVIO to “blank the work.” In future, I’ll just add the {{copyvio}} template at the top of the text without deleting anything else. —Tarmstro99 17:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Mm, you're right, the wording's a bit poor. Previously we did blank the entire page, but a little while ago we tweaked the template to automatically hide the text without having to remove it. It seems as if we didn't change the actual instructions for adding {{copyvio}}. I'll reword it to remove any confusion. Sorry about that!—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 17:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Court cases at Proposed deletions

Since you are very familar with court opinions, I would really appreciate it if you could look over the documents in question and compare them to other sources. I most intereseted in determining if they are accurate and complete. I would also be happy to have a breakdown of what they actually are and exactly the authority of the authors. I am thinking they are opinions written by judges determining the court case but the legalese makes my eyes glaze over and doubt that I understand the meaning of anything. I understand if you don't want to get involed in a dispute, but any leads you could give me on another person to ask would be appreciated in that case. Thanks.--BirgitteSB 00:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Happy to do so. They do appear to be the published decisions of two different courts, authored by the judges and issued publicly. The original posters included the published citations (to F.2d and A.2d, two collections of official published court opinions in the U.S. I'm about to leave for a conference, but will check the posted cases against the corresponding hard-copy volumes of F.2d and A.2d when I return. (I'll add myself as a proofreader in the textinfo box on the respective talk pages when I'm finished so you will know I have done this.) Tarmstro99 14:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking this on.--BirgitteSB 15:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

United States Court of Appeals cases

I saw your comment on the US Appeals Court case you just added them US Supreme Court template to. I thought you could add that template to any case, but that you would have just to change which court it is by, in this case one of the appeals court. Wabbit98 16:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The Template:USSCcase seems designed to put everything into Category:United States Supreme Court decisions. I guess what we really need is a separate template for opinions of the Courts of Appeals, but I suspect it's beyond my tech acumen to create one. Tarmstro99 21:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Index:H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476

I'm a bit new to Wikisource and was looking for something to work on except EB1911. I looked through the recent changes and noticed you were uploading the raw OCR text of H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476. I'm assuming you know more about proofreading government texts than I do, so if you could take a quick look through the pages I've done so far (2 through 7) and see if I made any obvious mistakes? Perhaps we could collaborate on this text to get it done efficiently? Psychless 01:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks terrific so far, and I appreciate the help! I have the remaining OCR text ready to upload over the course of the next few days. I have already proofread a few pages later in the text myself (starting around p. 48 or so) and will circle back for more once all the raw text is online. Tarmstro99 01:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. If you proofread any of the pages I've already proofread (text quality 75%) then make sure to set the text quality to 100%. Psychless 03:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I have one more question. Should the subsections/clauses be indented with a colon (:)? Psychless 03:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's probably best to do so in circumstances where that matches the appearance of the scanned original. Tarmstro99 12:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) The indenting makes the pages look much nicer. There's very little difference between the text and the image now. Psychless 18:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you please take a look at page 59 of the House Report? There's an error that's listed in the errata, but when I make the change the sentence makes no sense. Perhaps you can understand it? Psychless 01:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed page 59 to match the description in the errata, and I think it reads OK as corrected. The confusion might have arisen from the fact that the erroneous text (““is that the public should not be required to pay a ‘double subsidy’”) appears twice in the same paragraph as originally published. If you replace the first occurrence of that text with the correction listed in the errata (“in this situation, and the basically different policy considerations”), the result is nonsensical; but if you replace the second occurrence, the final result makes sense, I think. Thanks again for the help! Tarmstro99 01:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Your welcome, and thanks for fixing that. Psychless 15:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism Reversion

Thanks for undoing the vandalism on What Is Money?. If you hadn't done it, it would have taken me a full month to have caught it! Cnadolski 17:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikisource:Case law

Greetings,

I was wanting to break Wikisource:Case law down into a couple sub-indices based on country, so that there wasn't one "huge" index, but so that Wikisource:Case law points to Wikisource:Canadian law, Wikisource:American law, Wikisource:European law, etc. I know it's kinda "your" domain, so wanted to get your opinion/permission first. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Ivan Turgenev} 20:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that’s a great idea. I might suggest naming the sub-domains case law rather than just law, though (so: Wikisource:Canadian case law, Wikisource:United States case law, etc.), since we also collect other legal materials (statutes, regulations, and the like) that are definitely law but aren’t cases. Tarmstro99 21:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

"unlinked"

I see you have marked the section of Clinton A. Snowden's History of Washington that I and transcribing as "unlinked". In fact, there is one other document that should probably link to it, and I will do that, but why would one expect incoming links to documents on this site? In general, one is simply transcribing primary documents here; many of these will not have other primary documents that refer to them.

In any case, the tag you have added suggests that it should be a candidate for deletion. I cannot imagine why this document would be inappropriate, and would appreciate if you would either remove the tag you added or put something on the discussion page indicating why it might be inappropriate. - Jmabel 20:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see my reply at your talk page. In brief, the {{unlinked}} tag is concerned only with making pages easier for users here to locate; it isn’t a suggestion that the page should be deleted, only that it needs to be indexed. Tarmstro99 18:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification; I responded a bit further on my talk page. - Jmabel 18:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Sysop

Hi, Tarmstro,

You now have sysop rights. On WS:ADMINS could you add your name and all languages you speak to the table? Thanks.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 00:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

case document

Hi, could you look into FORENSIC EVALUATION REPORT; the history says it is part of "United States of America v. Jose Padilla" which is missing and the page is an orphan. I think it is strange that someone would upload just this document and not the rest of the case.

It contains what would normally be consider private information, so I think we need to verify that it has been made public. Even if it is public information, I am concerned that hosting it here gives this information extra visibility. I think that in order to keep case files, the court ruling must also be hosted here to ensure that the document is not taken out of context. John Vandenberg 00:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is another one: REPORT OF PSYCHIATRIC ASSESSMENT. John Vandenberg 05:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I checked the Padilla case docket on PACER and found the original records. These are two attachments (out of a total of 5) that were appended to a motion for a mental competency hearing filed by Padilla’s lawyers in late 2006. They are clearly “public” documents in the sense that they can be searched, viewed, and downloaded by anyone who registers for a PACER account and pays the nominal fee of 8 cents a page. But being “public” in that sense is perhaps, as you suggest, not the end of the story. First, as was recently discussed in the Scriptorium, the copyright status of legal pleadings in the U.S. is unsettled. Court decisions are clearly public domain, but the same cannot definitively be said of materials written by nongovernmental authors that then become part of a case file. Second, there is the possible issue of invasion of privacy; even though these documents were publicly available via PACER to anyone who searched for them and paid the necessary fee, we in some sense make them “more public” by hosting them here. On the other hand, perhaps the privacy concerns aren’t so great here in view of the fact that these exhibits were attached to a pleading filed (and thus made public) by Padilla himself, who is a litigant in the case (in other words, we’re not talking about a disclosure of information concerning a mere witness or somebody only tangentially involved who isn’t accused of wrongdoing—I’d expect such people to have a stronger claim of entitlement to privacy than Padilla does here). I don’t have a particularly strong sense one way or the other as to whether these “belong” on WS or not; perhaps the best argument for removing them is that they weren’t previously published in quite the same way that, for example, court opinions are? Tarmstro99 16:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

User:E3210

Dear Sir, I would like to change my user name User:E3210 as user:3210. Would you help me.--E3210 08:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see my note on your talk page. Tarmstro99 20:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Act of Independence of Lithuania

In the short run it doesn't matter much whether this is undeleted. I can always add the response if and when I receive it. Sorry if I conflicted with you on that page. John was looking for input on some of these older ones, and I have gradually working my way through them. Eclecticology 22:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

A question

First I'd like to note that my month absence was due to a dead computer. Now, my question is on Index:H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476 (1976). Which is correct: Section 118(b)(3) or Section 118(b) (3)? I've always done the former, but now I'm starting to have doubts about whether I've been doing it correctly. Do you happen to know the correct style? Psychless 14:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice to have you back! I believe it’s customary to close up the spacing (so, no spaces between the parentheses), even though it looks as if the typeface they used for the House report includes some fairly generous spacing on either side of its parenthesis characters. I’ve generally been writing “118(b)(3)” rather than “118(b) (3)” (or even “118 (b) (3)”) even though it sometimes appears from the scanned text as if there are some superfluous spaces in there. Tarmstro99 17:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. Thanks. My new computer (well, the parts) should be arriving in the next few days. Then I'll be able to download the pdf so I can proofread the later pages. If you don't have a utility that allows you to keep one window always on top, I would recommend that you get DeskPins (just Google it). That way you won't have to keep flipping back and forth between windows when you're proofreading the last half or so of the report. Psychless 22:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Errata links

After looking at one of the pages you recently proofread I see you've linked the errors the errata fixes. Should I do it on the pages I'm proofreading as well? Psychless 00:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I like it a little better that way—when a reader sees that we have transcribed a portion of text differently from the way it appears in the adjacent image, they also see a link that explains why. Not a big deal, but if you catch any from here on out, I think it’s helpful to the readers to link the changed text to the errata page explaining the change.

Thanks again for all your help with this! I think we’re getting quite close to being able to start collating the first 200 pages or so onto their own page (the pages with the three-column images will take a little longer, but I don’t think that’s a reason to hold off posting the actual text of the committee report). Tarmstro99 13:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good. I've been trying to get History of Iowa From the Earliest Times to the Beginning of the Twentieth Century/4 added as well, but that's considerably easier since Google's OCR text of the book is pretty good. Thanks for the clarification. Psychless 14:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)