Nigmont

Hello Nigmont, welcome to the multilingual Wikisource! Thanks for your interest in the project; we hope you'll enjoy the community and your work here.

This wiki is the original Wikisource wiki, originally hosting works in many languages. The larger collections have been spawned into separate projects, leaving this wiki to serve as a central collaboration point, and as an environment where works without a language subdomain can be started. Refer to our languages list to see which languages still reside on this wiki. You can find a list of the separate language projects on the main page or here and you may want to look at the our coordination page for limitations on placing certain works on the separate language projects.

Most questions and discussions about the community are in 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!

Please help translate to your language

Zyephyrus (talk) 20:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)}}

• I missed to reply to your greeting timely, but as it is said (at least in the Russia): "Late is better than never" (Russian: "Лучше поздно чем никогда"); so I tell you now:
  Thank you, Zyephyrus! And I am very glad to work here! --Nigmont (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

PD-russia

Hey Nigmont, I see you are doing great! just in case... (I am too focused on the neapolitan texts, but sometimes I observe my neighbours for inspiration ^^) I've noticed you are creating the PD-russia templates, this is great as an indication for the users. However, the files (e.g.: djvus & pdfs) that are PD-US AND PD-RU at the same time are super-worthy to be loaded in commons. Afterwards, they can be used by any sister projects, and the benefit is that sometimes I get a surprise (^^) when I find some of them take advance and use the files for their own reference (as in wikipedia articles).

So more or less... if you have a pdf or a djvu file that is PD-US AND PD-RU at the same time, it would be good to be uploaded in wikimedia commons.... then, in order to create an index... once you have a link as for example https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lo_sfregio.djvu... just change the address in your browser: replace commons.wikimedia by wikisource and let the rest as it is... and voilà... it will give you the offer to create an index page linked to this file. I hope this was helpful, let me know any doubt!--C.R. (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• Hello, CR! Thank you for your advice! Really, I have already uploaded one file File:Мордовский облфинотдел - стенгазета 1929, декабрь, мокш-рус.djvu to the WikiCommons, and I suppose to use links to it to indicate it as scan source for the text of that work that I will publish (without creating proofread pages, because proofreading is not needed here because the text in that djvu has been already recognized). But your advice also may be referred to another file that I previously uploaded here instead of WikiCommons — File:Иоанн-вельденьне Шкайстонь Ёнь-куля.djvu. That work is PD worldwide due to its age, so it is also both PD-US and PD-RU, and might be uploaded to the Commons... Yes, sooner I will do upload it to the Commons as you said. Just WikiCommons scares me a little bit (for its threats to delete immediately the file if it is not properly tagged by license tag), and at the first time I being afraid that the file may be deleted didn't find enough bravery to upload it directly to Commons :) --Nigmont (talk) 11:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

hehe, yes, don't worry you'll get familiar. I have here also some texts that might fit into commons, but I need to study them a bit before doing the transfer :D. Keep going with the good job, ciao! --C.R. (talk) 12:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Page:Эрзянь ёвкст (М. Е. Евсевьев, 1928).djvu/103

Hello Nigmont, I noticed you proofread the above page. Just a question: in your opinion, should this file be renamed? Also, am I correct in the believe that prior to moving filenames on commons it should be discussed within wikisource if they happen to be used here? Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 05:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Lotje!

About file renaming: I think, after I just now have read the renaming policy from Wikicommons - yes, this file should be renamed to use more accurate filename. But before renaming we need to find out (at least approximately) where does this file (photo) come from, as well as the time and circumstances of when this photo was taken. Also correct license tag should be posted on the file page (I think it's OK with license but it should be marked clearly). I will try to do all of these, but not earlier than today's evening (when I will be off my working time of my job). I did not do that straight away when I linked that file to the author's page because I simply re-used the same file which was used as illustration in the Russian and Erzya Wikipedia articles about this person (Makar Yevsev'ev), and I merely was in false positives that all were good with that file because it had already existed before.

Regarding conducting discussions about file renaming with file re-users at Wikisource and other projects: I don't think that such discussions are mandatory, but you may (not must) conduct them when you feel this is likely to be needed or useful - for example when you are in doubt which new name should be chosen, and actual file reusers probably may be most aware to propose a correct name. In addition, the forementioned policy from Commons says that generally after file renaming the redirection is created, therefore any re-users of the file being renamed do not feel any changes to their pages where the file is linked to. Also, as I know from my experience, bots are launched after that renaming to all wiki-projects where the file is used, to replace the old filename link to the new one. I see such robotic relinking in some projects (although I don't know how this renaming job is ordered to bots - automatically or by writing some request somewhere). So I think, at any case the renaming without discussing the reusers (except cases such discussion is really needed) is not to raise any trouble. --Nigmont (talk) 08:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking care of that file and also, I do appreciate very much your detailed information regarding discussion on file renaming. You have been very helpfull. :-) Lotje (talk) 16:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I surfed the Web trying to find any indication of date and place when the photo was taken, but failed to find — I found only reproductions of this file placed on various sites without marks of time and place. Originally this file was uploaded to Commons in 2009 — six years ago, so maybe original web-site did exist which firstly released this photo and contained that information but maybe that site has disappeared some later, and now such information likely cannot be traced via Internet. Definitely such information about this photo is kept somewhere in museums of Russia's republics of Mordovia (he was Erzya — one of two Mordvinic peoples) and Chuvashia (where he was born and grown), but I'm afraid those museums cannot be easily accessed via Internet — probably, a personal trip would be required. So to obtain this information becomes to be more complicated than I thought, sorry.

While examining the file description on Commons, I noticed that the original uploader of that file marked it to be taken in 1890 year. And I think that this date is very likely to be so — because Makar Yevseviev, as expected for 1890 year when he was 26 years old (he was born in 1864), looks on that photo like not an old, aged man (see for example Евсевьев Макар Евсевьевич where he is depicted being aged) but as a man which is really of post-youth age (at midst of his 20-th). Also, the uniform that he wears in the photo is very resembling to the standard uniform of teachers of Russian Empire — that uniform really looked like a slodier's uniform. According his biography on the Russian Wikipedia's article, he was a teacher in the Kazan' Seminary (school to educate future priests for church, in the city of Kazan'), so this point does not oppose to 1890 year as well. So I supposed to assume that this photo was really taken in 1890 year, and I updated the file description according that assumption.

So, at this time I propose to rename the file to a name something like 'Yevseviev M. E., teacher, RusEmpire.jpg' (I prefer not to indicate the year at this case clearly, because the date is still not known exactly, and if it would be some other — e.g. 1891 or 1889 — it would cause necessarity of renaming the file once again if we previously decided to indicate its date in the name and done so). If you don't object that name — I can try to put renaming request, or you can put such request yourself; or even you can do renaming yourself — if you have the rights for file renaming.

And in case if some later any definite information on this file would be found — then I would update the description once again (and put one more renaming request if it will be needed). --Nigmont (talk) 22:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

File was renamed as per your suggestion. Lotje (talk) 05:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

@Lotje: sorry but you made a little mistake when you renamed the file: File:Yevseviev M. E., teacher, RusEmpire.jpg.jpg — the second .jpg is redundant. I think it would be better to fix that defect and make renaming once more. --Nigmont (talk) 07:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Lotje, I see you fixed this already, thanks! --Nigmont (talk) 16:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

RE: Field "Author" in index pages

Thanks Nigmont!! now the transclusion is correctly directed! :D --C.R. (talk) 22:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Sp

why did you change the parameter of template used on 200+ pages without any information and discussion? Please, restore the previous code with the default value of spacing on 1em. Zdzislaw (talk) 17:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, I changed the default value of parameter to 1em as you asked... Why I previously changed it to 0.15em: if you look to the Template:Sp and Template:Letter-spacing, then you see that a little time ago the Sp was a simple redirection to the Letter-spacing, and originally Letter-spacing was created with 0.3em gap (see version of 10:57, 7 November 2013. Not long ago I made same changes to the template Letter-spacing, and changed the default value to 1em. Today I saw your edits where the Sp was used, and minded that you might not expect the gap 1em which I have set, so I changed the redirection "Sp" with contents from en-wikisource's Sp where default value was 0.15em. But if you like the default value 1em which I have set before -- then no problem, I changed it back to 1em :) --Nigmont (talk) 17:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

0.15em seemed to me too small, so... maybe 0.3em as it was initially? Zdzislaw (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, I changed to 0.3em. And looking to pages which you have edited, it seems to me that it is the best approximation to the real gap printed in the book. Please check (notice that if you don't see any changes -- then purge may be needed to be done on page), and say -- does such gap look well for you too? --Nigmont (talk) 18:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

yes, thanks. Zdzislaw (talk) 18:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Good, then we stay with this size, I will change the Template:Sp's documentation accordingly. By the way (as described in doc): take a notice that you can set the space's size explicitly if you need customized size of spaces:
e.g. {{sp|The text|1em}} produces:
The text
Maybe it would be useful. Best regards, Nigmont (talk) 19:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

About Neapolitan wikisource tools

Thanks for suggestion, I'm using Category:Neapolitan wikisource tools, let's wait and see if other small projects will do the same, it would be interesting.

The main tool (a really heavy javascrtipt) would deserve a long English doc page, it's a large and growing collection of nsPage editing tools, are you interested to have a try? If you are, ask me for a brief summary of what that mega-tool can do; I can't guess if it could help other users. I only know, that I need it to edit nsPage texts.... --Alex brollo (talk) 15:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@Alex brollo: it's good that you had created Category:Neapolitan wikisource tools. Some later I will create the similar category for tools, used in the Mokshan WS (and also another category for Erzyan WS as well). I have already created some templates in the Category:Шаблотт (мокшень), they may be useful for somebody else, so I am going to make some English descriptions on some of them some later.

Regarding the main tool you are saying about: do you mean your script User:Alex brollo/common.js? As for now, I don't know whether this script could be useful for me — I am accustomed to standard available tools... Some day later maybe I would want to try your script, but not for now. So, as of me personally, there are no any necessity to prepare English descriptions ASAP, but if you make them someday, when you will find some free time for this — it would be useful, I think; but this, as I said above, is not urgent anyway. --Nigmont (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok :-) --Alex brollo (talk) 18:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Спасибо

	The Wikisource Barnstar
	Thanks for checking and validating Index:Code of Hammurabi (1904).pdf. All Hail Marduk! and Happy New Year. Hausratte (talk) 20:57, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Вам также спасибо за орден (мельком видел ещё до Нового Года, но не прокомментировал, т. к. был занят предновогодними хлопотами). Рад помочь, по мере возможности. --Nigmont (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

A_question_about_copyright_policy

Hey!

As you are interested in legal documents could you please comment on those matters? Thanks.--Dixtosa (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

A related wiki

See wikilivresru: Have you ever edited there? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:01, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi! Yes, I have seen that wiki before; but I haven't edited there, and even I am still not registered there (as I have understood a written request should be sent via e-mail to become registered, similar as for Wikilivres.ca). --Nigmont (talk) 12:41, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:PD-US-1996-abroad/RU

Здравствуйте!

Увидел, что вы добавили шаблон PD-US-1996-abroad/RU в эту викитеку, поэтому решил спросить у вас. На вашей странице User:Nigmont/Copyright for Russian Federation works указаны условия перехода текста в общественное достояние. При этом текст шаблона, который вы создали, этим условиям противоречит. Сейчас при чтении этого шаблона у человека, незнакомого с историей вопроса, складывается убеждение, что любой текст, впервые опубликованный в СССР до 1946 года, находится в общественном достоянии в США, независимо от того, как давно умер его автор и умер ли вообще. Если это не соответствует действительности, то этот шаблон следовало бы переписать так, чтобы он не создавал ложных иллюзий у участников проекта из бывшего СССР. --Wadorgurt (talk) 19:32, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Здравствуйте, @Wadorgurt: спасибо за замечание, вы правы... Я исправлю текст шаблона, но позже, когда будет время... Но вообще, он должен использоваться в редких случаях, когда некая работа на дату 1 января 1996 года была в общественном достоянии в России, по российским законам того времени, а потом опять вернулась в России в закопирайченное состояние, из-за более поздних изменений в законодательстве, или каких-то других обстоятельств. Во всех остальных случаях его использовать не нужно. Более полное описание того, когда этот шаблон вообще надо использовать, описано в справке к его "родительскому" шаблону (который тоже создал я) — Template:PD-US-1996-abroad, но правда по-английски. Могу, если нужно, продублировать это же описание, на русском, в справку к Template:PD-US-1996-abroad/RU. Как думаете — нужно это? --Nigmont (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Думаю, нужно, поскольку сейчас исходя из русского текста шаблона человек может прийти к неправильным выводам относительно перехода работ в ОД в США (если не прочитает английский текст, а он может его не прочитать, полагая, что русский текст - это перевод английского). --Wadorgurt (talk) 16:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Wadorgurt: я обновил шаблон, добавил в русскоязычную его часть подробное описание того, при каких вообще условиях он применим. Получилось немного громоздко (чего собственно я и боялся изначально), но зато теперь всё расписано, по идее... Посмотрите — как на ваш взгляд, подойдёт такой вид шаблона? --Nigmont (talk) 05:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC) P. S. Также обновил документацию — в примере использования поменял год реабилитации на 2008 (т. к. 1956 не является подходящим, т. к. на самом деле если бы автор был реабилитирован в 1956 то его работы не были бы в ОД в России на 1/1/1996). --Nigmont (talk) 05:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

В принципе стало лучше. А чтобы не было слишком громоздко можно маркированный список обстоятельств перенести на страницу документации, например. --Wadorgurt (talk) 16:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• And also: Эта работа была впервые опубликована в Российской Федерации and она была впервые опубликована до 1989 года seems a bit contradicting to me. IMO, only Эта работа была впервые опубликована в государствах-предшественниках Российской Федерации (СССР или РСФСР) should be left here (as in English text). Can you verify? Ankry (talk) 23:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Мордовские песни

Возможно, вам будет интересно, а может вы и так знаете: наткнулся случайно в Сынъ Отечества за 1830 год на Мордовскія пѣсни, на мордовском или мокшанском языке, с русским переводом. На фейсбуке запостил скрины (artem.komisarenko/posts/1664778016914352), скан можна взять на рутрекере (forum/viewtopic.php?t=5025129), файл Сын отечества и Северный архив. 1830. Т. 16. № 47-52 (СО. Ч. 138. СА. Ч. 52).pdf, страница в электронном документе 54. URL я обрезал, оказывается, тут антиспамилка их не пропускает. Artem.komisarenko (talk) 13:08, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Koht jemne mil̦t vьjet

Hello! Could you please help me to proofread the Russian text on Page:Koht jemne mil̦t vьjet.pdf/4 and Page:Koht jemne mil̦t vьjet.pdf/26? Especially Italic Cyrillic is difficult for me. 😊 Jon Harald Søby (talk) 01:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• Hello, @Jon Harald Søby: I fixed Cyrillic (Russian) text on those pages. But I additionally want to make to you a special notice — after seeing that you have taken, as a source file for proofreading this book, a file from Fenno-Ugrica electronic library, — from that part of the website where files are stored which have been provided by National Library Resource from Russia, and on which files it is claimed by that Resource that those works do "belong to ownerless property (escheat), with regard to which the procedure of the use of works which fell into public domain is implemented". As I myself have known from browsing those files before (I also have known about that site, and already have taken some works from there) while I was searching for works in the Mordvinic languages (Moksha and Erzya), the copyright status of some works, declared there as "ownerless property" and "escheat", was at least dubious and uncertain, and carrying hints to be untrue. And for some others of those works, as I found, to claim them as "ownerless property" was completely invalid, since I knew and was pretty sure about the authors of those works — that those authors had died not so long ago and their copyright term had not yet expired, and also it was very well known that those authors have heirs (children, or at least nephews) who are still alive and who should inherit copyright, so the terms of "ownerless propetry" and "escheat" could not be applied to those works. And any of these occurences of falsely stated PD by Russian NLR convinced me that all other declarations about PD copyright status must be regarded also as dubious and unreliable, and so far this obstacle makes, IMHO, mandatory an additional investigation about free copyright status of works taken from Fenno-Ugrica and delivered there from NLR of Russia, before trying to publish those works here on Wikisource. It seems to me that it might be that guys from NLR just had too much desire to obtain more money from the Finnish Library which funded the works on delivering free Finno-Ugric texts from NLR, and it might be that those NLR guys in some cases just didn't took much care whether some particular work could really be regarded as "ownerless property". So, I would recommend to you to pay attention to this situation if you try take some more works from there to publish here, and fulfill some additional investigation about whether the work is in PD.

Nevertheless, notwithstanding to all what I said above, I would also ask to you — not to try to contact to Finnish Library in order to convince them to strongly ascertain, that some works obtained from NLR are not free. I am afraid that it may result, if they take attention to that, in complete withdrawal of all those works, which ones by itself are precious pieces of information for Finno-Ugric minorities of Russia, and notwithstanding to possible copyright law violations (which IMO are not very multiple though, and they are not outrageous since the works actually are too old and have almost zero probability that they may produce substantial commercial interest), such withdrawal would be very sad and bad for Finno-Ugric cultures.

Sorry if I described unclearly and it was difficult to understand what I said (I don't know English well and may express phrases in a weird way in English), but I hope you understand what I told here. Best regards, with hope, Nigmont (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)