User talk:Htonl/Archives/2010
|
Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in , although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index. |
Got it validated
Notice 1490 of 2008 is all validated in the Page: namespace. :-) Do consider adding it to {{new texts}} billinghurst sDrewth 15:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Little request
- Notice modeled after [1]
As Template:New texts is monitored in IRC, and many users have it in their Watchlists, I was wondering whether you would consider adding the name of the text being added to the edit summary, rather than solely +1,-1. Even if it is just have +Name of work, -1 that would be most helpful. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 04:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Knock, knock. Input required
As the contributor, or at least the local expert, would you mind participating in the conversation Wikisource:Possible copyright violations#Nelson Mandela's address on his release from prison. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Unfair block
Dear Htonl – I have become fairly active on the Wikisource:Possible copyright violations discussion page in recent times. You are probably familiar with some of the issues I have raised there (including what is meant by an “Edict of Government”). On 2 May 2010 I made a number of edits. Most of these edits related to me “tagging, hiding and listing for discussion” works that were labeled as “Edicts of Government” (e.g. South African political speeches, a national anthem and other works). The same day Administrator Billinghurst blocked me. I cannot say precisely why – as he did not give precise reasons – but the general heading he gave was that “Okay, that is too rampant” (i.e. I was being too active in ““tagging, hiding and listing for discussion”).
I have disagreed with Billinghurst on a number of copyright points of late – basically, I would like the same standard to be applied to all works. The same high standard that is – even if that means that a lot of works need to be listed for discussion etc - but his approach is different. I think Billinghurst views me as ‘trouble’. In contrast, I think I have made a worthwhile contribution, prompting interesting discussions, greater clarity and the removal of some works. Indeed, the works I “tagged, hid and listed for discussion” on 2 May 2010 have led to interesting copyright discussions on the copyright violations discussion page. I would like Billinghurst to apologise for blocking me and somehow “expunge” my record.
I would appreciate any contribution you would like to make on my talk page where my block is being discussed. I am sending this message to all persons who have participated on the same copyright violation discussions as me. I do not know how else to generate further participation in the discussion concerning my block save direct messages – as I cannot list this matter (a personal one) on the copyright violations page. The discussion is at User talk:Formosa. Given my treatment, I admit to feeling a bit disheartened about my continuing involvement in the copyright violations project. Thanks. Formosa (talk) 13:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Sidenotes templates
Hi. Just looked under the hood at some of the legislation that you have transcribed and congratulate you on your patience.
For future reference, you may be interested in the Sidenotes templates {{sidenotes begin}} which have been set up to do that sort of stuff, and hopefully less painlessly. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
WP:LAW
Hello! I saw your work at Copyright Regulations, 1978, so I thought you may be interested in Wikiproject Law. Cheers, stephen (talk) 22:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Most things at Wikisource: ns to Portal: ns
Following a discussion at Scriptorium, it was agreed that the subject matter pages at the Wikisource: namespace, like Wikisource:Constitutional documents of South Africa would be moved to the Portal: namespace, with x-ns redirects existing for a period. While it is still early in the process, you may wish to consider those subject pages that you have created, and how they may be moved. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 12:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
an alternative tested — billinghurst sDrewth 12:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Validated
Hi again,
Noticed you've done some re-work on the original 1996 South African Constitution pages so I figured it is well past time somebody ran along with you and at least validated the proofread pages. Didn't find too many deviations in it (a tribute to all that hard work) and easily fixed the errant ommissions, though certain pages where some combination of:
- <center> and {{anchor}}; or
- <center> and {{x-large}} along with {{anchor}}; or
- <center> and {{x-large}} outside of <div>; or
- some other combinations using the above...
causes an "unbalance" in opening & closing tags or something so that any attempt to edit the Page: on my part forces a large swath of content to be rendered by my browser in the <noinclude> footer somehow and would go completely missing upon saving and first transclusion. The last line in the main content box is at or around where you're centering an anchored chapter or sub-division title if that makes any difference, No big deal because everything trancludes just fine apparently but without a tweak or two, you'll need someone else to validate those pages for you -- I left those pages untouched and as I found them in case it's not clear.George Orwell III (talk) 05:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- Firstly, thanks very much for doing all that validating! Secondly, that's rather weird. I've looked at the pages you didn't validate, and on most of them the subdivision headers used a slightly unconventional use of noinclude/includeonly. So I've removed that; but some of them aren't like that. So I'd appreciate it if you could look over them again and see if any of them work. Other than that, could you tell me what browser you're using so I can try to replicate the bug? Thanks, Htonl (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry for not touching back sooner.... had to run. I see you've already gone back & smoothed out my rough edges & validated that last page too. It does seem like it was the noinclude/includeonly ballet that caused that. Well, just holler if need a second hand - I'm usually around every other day. George Orwell III (talk) 01:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)