User talk:CarolSpears~enwikisource

Welcome to Wikisource. Hesperian 11:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Before the welcome templates :) -- CarolSpears 01:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

No, we have them; I didn't think you would want one. Am I wrong? Hesperian 01:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, I did not want one :) -- CarolSpears 07:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The way to achieve that is to move the Page: title to the title of the new image, then update the index. Hesperian 14:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Eek! That seems really aggressive! I would have never attempted that. It is an interesting set up there, btw. Is it a format that existed here previous to that particular text and its pages being located here?

Also, what about the option to upload the cleaned version into the existing namespace and also uploading the orginal version into a new namespace with a consistent name change in it? -- CarolSpears 00:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The Proofread Page extension has been active here for ages, but it has really hit its straps in the last few months. Here are some usage statistics.

I suggest you upload the cleaned versions over the top of the dirty versions, and only re-upload the dirty versions if you think they have something to offer. But if you do that you must retain the entire page, and all of the text; i.e. no cropping or scrubbing the Linn. Trans. Vol. X. Tab. X..

Hesperian 01:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The xcf contains all of that and the original. My mind goes back and forth between making them nice for reprinting (which means that the fonts should be re-typeset) and for web display and for other purposes and for accurate archiving. Yesterdays flower plate, I have locally a version called "long descriptive name-renewed.jpg" and a version called "long descriptive name-renewed-nopgno.jpg" that have the page information removed. I am not happy with nopgno as a name for that but after accomplishing the task of the image work, it is often difficult for me to think of naming. The font areas are really difficult to clean nicely. As far as image versions go at the commons, keeping access to the original scans is good. Another person who is as interested in this as I am and perhaps with greater abilities than me should be allowed to renovate them without having to understand the wiki versioning capabilities from the start. I think the first time I looked to see how an improved image was originally, I reverted and then un-reverted it. Cumbersome and eventually I was showed the links in the upload history.

My brain and experience has been in a 'gear' which attempts to think internationally and for screen, print and archive for a long while now. Knowing what the images should do here is very helpful within the muck that I just described. Thanks and I don't know that I would have looked at Proofreading for instructions about what I should be doing. -- CarolSpears 02:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

For future reference, it seems that when I upload dirty images that have the potential to be cleaned, I should preemptively name them descriptive-name-original.jpg, so that others may upload derivatives with original replaced or removed. Hesperian 03:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The word "dirty" and the word "used" and the word "old" are as abused and misused as most of the natural world is. "Original scans" is a lot of words to have to type though. I personally think it is good that the books actually were used in their lifetime. It might be one of the ways to tell the real thing from a "collectible" and a scientific document from an "investment" or "forgery", other interesting descriptive words that might be used when discussing old scans of what should be respectable old documents.

Since so much effort has gone into proof reading these text, I will only be renovating the title pages -- they are almost images with the layout and such and they often enough include images. Much of this decision is based on a problem I am having with a renovation of an image from commons:Category:Koehler1887 -- the font used on two of the images doesn't match. The text renovation for the pages with the drawings probably just needs to be handled separately from the drawing. I admit also that I have replaced fonts on what appeared to be one time images: Image:Components of TIROS Spac0056-repair.png. This is a very different situation though. -- CarolSpears 05:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed

Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called CarolSpears. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name CarolSpears~enwikisource that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation

23:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed

This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: Special:GlobalRenameRequest. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk)

06:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)