User talk:Hesperian

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search

Archives:  • 6 • 7 • 8 • 9 • 10 • 11 • 12 • 13 • 14 • 15 • Last archived on 30 November 2014

use of sp[edit]

Hesperian, please look at to see if you prefer the spacing. If not then let me know with a yes or no. Kind Regards, —Maury (talk) 03:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Maury. Nice to hear from you. Yes, I prefer the spacing. Hesperian 04:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Hesperian, I am very tired and am going to go to bed but I saw 2 chapters "6" (six) that are not allowed. Sort them please. :0 )
VI Page:The Aspern Papers.djvu/76 
VI Page:The Aspern Papers.djvu/198 

—Maury (talk) 05:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Maury. This book contains three novellas, each of this is entitled to its own Chapter 6. Hesperian 00:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Aspern Papers, The Modern Warning[edit]

Yes check.svg Done - The Aspern Papers, Louisa Pallant, The Modern Warning (1 volume, London & New York: Macmillan & Co., 1888) Happy Holidays Hesperian, Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 10:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Wow, thank you so much Maury, I'm stoked! Merry Christmas to you too! Hesperian 10:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Some dimestore psychology for y'all[edit]

If you have the courage to stand up for what you believe in, even into the teeth of a power differential, you should be proud of that. Not everyone has the guts to 'speak truth to power'.

I say you should be proud of it. I don't say you should let yourself by defined by it. Sadly, some people make this the basis of their self-esteem, and are thus constantly manufacturing grounds to 'speak truth to power', so as to reassure themselves of their own value. It's really very sad.

What follows for them is a simple two-step recipe. Keep your eyes open and over time this recipe will become oh-so-familiar to you:

  1. Mythologise a power to speak your truth to. Start with someone who has a modicum of influence over you—a boss, a teacher, a principal, a 'crat, a checkuser. Now manufacture an image of them as all-powerful. Exaggerate the extent of their power to harm you. Convince yourself that their power has no limits, checks or balances. You're not 'speaking truth to power' if your boss is too nice to abuse their power over you, so mythologise them as an abuser of power with no moral compass. You're not 'speaking truth to power' if other people will stick up for you, so characterise the community as completely sucked in by this power-abuser. You alone see them for what they really are. Represent yourself as a lone voice—isolated, excluded, ostracized. Or better still, actually isolate yourself. You're not speaking truth to power if there are processes in place to protect you, so mythologise 'the system' as against the little guy—the system exists only to protect and perpetuate itself, and will always come down on the side of the powerful. Congratulations, you have now manufactured a power who is really worth 'speaking truth to'. Wow, you must really be gutsy, and principled, to stand up to that.
  2. Manufacture a "truth". This part is very easy. All you need is a point to disagree on. Anything will do. Something will come up soon enough, and if it doesn't you can easily force the matter by being rude. Once you have a disagreement, however minor, use aggressive rhetoric to spin it up into a bigger and more heated dispute. This act of spinning up the disagreement is itself 'speaking truth to power'; and the more heated the dispute gets, the more you show your courage and integrity by continuing in the same antagonizing vein.

At this point, one of two things happens. Either power is exercised against you, or it is not. Either way, your self-image gets a boost. You've either rendered true the myth that you were speaking truth into the teeth of a genuine threat, and thus proven your extraordinary courage; or you've taken a power-abuser down a peg or two, and lived to fight another day.

Hesperian 13:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


Before I go tromping, seeking a second opinion on The Aborigines of Victoria. I would have just called it a work, and linked the volumes rather than created a disambiguation. Your thoughts? — billinghurst sDrewth 05:24, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree, it is a work. Hesperian 01:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

New Proposal Notification - Replacement of common main-space header template[edit]

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)

disambiguation question[edit]

Copied from GO3's page: Can you please tell me your thoughts on the creation of a page such as this? I am mainly referring to the practice of using "various authors". I think it is practical, but am open to a better idea... Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Personally I support merging of "X", "The X", "A X" and "An X" versions pages. If there must be separate pages for "X" and "The X", I don't think I would use a dot point. I would follow the dot point entries with "See also The X." Hesperian 04:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
If I understand you correctly, you would use "Sphinx" as the disambiguation page, and have "The Sphinx", etc. all redirect to "Sphinx"? Using Problem as an example,—there are no works on WS actually entitled "Problem", but we have The Problem and A Problem disambiguation/version pages. Would you suggest using Problem as the disambiguation page—putting all titles under that banner—and making "The Problem" and "A Problem" both redirect to "Problem"? Under what circumstances might there need to 'be separate pages for "X" and "The X"'? Sorry if this is obvious... I am almost brain dead. Thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Hat-note question[edit]

Refer to The Lesson of the Master

I've managed to incorporate all the top "similar" and bottom "version" type of strings within the main navigation-header container before moving the container itself out from under the spell of Dynamic Layouts, but I hesitate to go any further and do the same to things like {{incomplete}}.

First of all, all those type of messages/banners are based on one type of table-based box or another and, unfortunately, are now all created & formatted by Module:Message box & Module:Message box/configuration instead of by traditional template &/or sub-template. That makes turning them to all div based a real project even before I get to the Dynamic Layout part. I don't see an issue (other than personal preference) with those box-type of banners rendering below the header but I figure best to solicit your opinion on this before making the next move.

As an aside - can you think of any other hat-note-ish templates that normally appear above the navigation header like {{Similar}} should? (I covered similar, other translations and other versions already ). -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Your bot[edit]

Hi there, I've been patiently waiting for your bot to upload some raw page scans (especially those in these volumes: Portland, Oregon: Its History and Builders). It's not urgent, and I still have many pages yet to tag with the {{raw image}} template. But I did just look, and see that it's been a very long time since the bot was last active. Is there a problem? Is it possible for me to trigger the bot directly? -Pete (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Pete,
Sorry, real life is insane for me at the moment; I'm in a perfect storm of urgent demands on my time. Running the bot is not an onerous task, but even quick and easy tasks are hard to fit in right now. I think I can find time to run it on Sunday if not before then.
Cheers, Hesperian 00:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
OK! Please don't put yourself out. If you get to it any time in the next few weeks it will make me smile and free up some work I'd like to do illustrating Wikipedia...but if not, it's no biggie! Good luck unstorming. -Pete (talk) 01:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Bot is running. Because it hasn't run for so long, it has a lot to do behind the scenes before any uploads can happen. Hesperian 00:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

raw image[edit]

Ok, I understand now. I will fix when not on mobile device. (I can move files on commons.) Pete (talk) 08:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

It's okay, I fixed it. I was just dealing with some images that had been uploaded over the top of mine at Wikisource, still described by the original {{raw page scan}} template, yet used as restored images. In such a case I think it's appropriate for me to simply push them back to raw. It took me a little while to realise that yours were different — moved to Commons with new descriptions, but the same titles. In that case I should just move on Commons. Sorry. Hesperian 08:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

A reference problem[edit]

Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 29.djvu/540 There is something wrong with this page's references (nested) and I have no clue how to repair it. Ineuw (talk) 01:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

In transclusion do you mean? Is it okay now? Hesperian 01:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed your reply. It's OK now, TY. Ineuw (talk) 16:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
My fault you missed it. I had the flood flag on, so my reply wouldn't have come up on your watchlist unless you were viewing bot edits. You won't see this reply for the same reason! Oh well, one more day of flooding and I'm done for a while. Hesperian 03:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Won't be missed with a ping…this message brought to you by your friendly neighborhood talk page stalker. -Pete (talk) 03:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

use of space again[edit]

Hesperian, I am adding e.g. VII. to your book again. Scream if you don't want it this time. —Maury (talk) 01:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Maury. Thanks again for your validations. By all means feel free to let your validations reflect a little your personal style/flair/preferences. You rock! Hesperian 03:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)