User talk:Clockery

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search



Re: Special:Diff/4885449/4885451[edit]

Useful? AuFCL (talk) 18:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I knew something like this would come. ;-P I don't suppose they have any djvu files out there, do they? No? I thought not. —Clockery Fairfeld (ƒ=ma) 18:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
I've clearly tried to be too clever by far and genuinely do not know what you are looking for... pirates[ln 1] or palæobiology, or...? May I suggest starting again sans the cryptic (Ha! says me!)
    • archive.org had an interesting one on history of piracy (assuming of course I can find the reference again!) for example.
    AuFCL (talk) 23:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
    To tell the truth, even I don't know what I am looking for. I do what I can for now. Any suggestions, please? (And no, pirates are shelved for now.) —Clockery Fairfeld (ƒ=ma) 05:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
    Gasp! Even the Pirates of Penzance?! --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:25, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
    Well, not those pirates... thanks for reminding me about that, though. ;) —Clockery Fairfeld (ƒ=ma) 05:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

    Re: Index:Love among the chickens (1909).djvu[edit]

    Umm. Apologies for being so slow to notice this, but were you aware the above index is linked to Love Among the Chickens? The former is the 1909 edition, and the latter 1921. This would not be so great an issue, except the detail of the text appears to be hugely different, in the sense that quite different wording is used to relate essentially the same plot. Did you have plans how to resolve this, or have I stumbled across a complete non-sequitur? AuFCL (talk) 13:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

    I have created a bare-bones record for Armand Both, and included a tentative link back to Love Among the Chickens (which for I hope obvious reasons does not [yet] exist). I am mentioning this so that perhaps either one of us remembers to update the link should the book eventually be transcluded to a different location. Hope this is O.K. with you. AuFCL (talk) 14:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
    Thanks for reminding me. :) I had linked the chapter pages as sub-pages of Love Among the Chickens (New York: 1909) which I am creating now. The 1921 edition, according to Wikipedia, was a re-write of the 1909 version, apparently, which is why the texts don't match. Poof! I feel quite exhausted. Thanks for validating that book. Wodehouse was a genius. :D —Clockery Fairfeld (ƒ=ma) 14:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

    Clockery likes clock-work[edit]

    https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Woman_Triumphant.djvu/183

    Clockery, would you please fix this small table? and Yes, that is my photo. —Maury (talk) 05:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

    I'm not exactly what you would call experienced with tables, so I've attempted a non-table solution, which has gone awry. Gnome-face-crying.svg Try pinging @AuFCL: instead...Clockery Fairfeld (ƒ=ma) 10:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC) Nice photo, by the way. :)

    Thank you for trying, Clockery. That's par enough for a fair field.

    P.S. Yep, but I was younger in that photo. Probably age "29" :D I look more like Hemingway now.—Maury (talk) 11:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

    Thanks very much[edit]

    Thank you for your help at Wikisource:Featured_text_candidates#Wikipedia_is_pushing_the_boundaries_of_scholarly_practice_but_the_gender_gap_must_be_addressed with the proofreading of Wikipedia is pushing the boundaries of scholarly practice but the gender gap must be addressed by Adrianne Wadewitz.

    Much appreciated,

    -- Cirt (talk) 16:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

    You're welcome -- it was the least I could do. :) Best regards,—Clockery Fairfeld (ƒ=ma) 18:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
    Please see User_talk:EncycloPetey#Featured_text_update, any ideas on getting multiple other proofreaders? -- Cirt (talk) 18:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

    Dunno if you know the answer[edit]

    but I left a question at Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help#US_Senator_reposts_his_own_article_from_Wired_Magazine. -- Cirt (talk) 18:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

    Canterville Ghost files[edit]

    Gday. Trying to work out why the Canterville Ghost images are here, rather than at Commons. Wilde was dead, and his works are out of copyright, and Goldsmith is an American with the work being published in US, and before 1923. I cannot see an obstacle to their moving to Commons, however, you may know something that prohibits their moving to Commons. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

    To save either of you looking it up, the illustrator Author:Wallace Heard Goldsmith died in 1945. Possible reason (this edition of C.G. was published 1906)? AuFCL (talk) 22:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
    Yes, I did the author page, and the research. With an American author, and pre-1923 publication, the year of death becomes moot. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
    I wasn't sure whether Goldsmith was American or British (I had a feeling he was the latter), so I uploaded the images here just to be on the safe side. On the other hand, if you're sure there's no problem, feel free to move them to Commons. However, this image (w:File:Wallace Goldsmith - Oscar Wilde - Canterville Ghost - He met with a severe fall.jpg) has been marked as Do not move to Commons... any idea why? Argh, too confusing for me. Best regards,—Clockery Fairfeld (ƒ=ma) 04:34, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
    Ignorance and/or presumption. They had no research on the illustrator, and I think that they have presumed that it was published first in UK, and by a British illustrator. In short, they were wrong. I will relocate the work, and ensure that I tag it sufficiently to beat any challenge at Commons. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

    (ƒ=ma)[edit]

    Hickory Dickory Clockery, what is this thing you use? (ƒ=ma) force = Ma (mamma, mother, mom, ma?) From one who seeks true-true-absolute truth. e=mc 2 —Maury (talk) 14:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

    Oh, that? It's a little something I learnt in physics class and was rather struck with, dunno why... —Clockery Fairfeld (ƒ=ma) 17:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
    apples fall in pears. —Maury (talk) 22:15, 17 September 2014 (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)

    The Japanese Fairy Book[edit]

    I'm not sure if you're interested in working on The Japanese Fairy Book but I seem to recall you doing a little work on Peter Pan and thought I'd check anyway. All the images are already uploaded to Commons; the discussion page has the link. If you're up for it, thank you! If not, no worries. Cheers! The Haz talk 01:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

    Thanks, Haz! I'll be happy to work on it. I'm just caught up in a spot of exams right now, I'll be free in April or so. Thanks for letting me know! —Clockery_Fairfeld 03:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
    Sounds good, and don't worry about it. I just happened to have a little free time. The Haz talk 20:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

    Autopatrolled[edit]

    Thanks, lol, not that it really changes anything from my perspective, but nice vote of confidence. I'd hope 30k-odd edits on other projects over 7+ years indicates good faith. :) Revent (talk) 08:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

    Music advice[edit]

    Hello and Happy New Year!

    Since you have contributed to Author:Arthur Seymour Sullivan I wonder if you would like to discuss (advice) with me regarding western classical music. Some time ago I started the article w:List of Cambridge Companions to Music. The subsequent contributor "Smerus" is a contributor to one of the volumes of the series.

    What is the best route to proceed if someone who has read all of the Wikipedia biographies of the composers and wants to appreciate what’s going on? I have started through downloading w:Karajan: Beethoven Symphonies (1963) from YouTube.

    You know I am from India and your knowledge of Sullivan impresses me. I highly doubt any of my friends will have competency in any of the topics (except probably The Beatles). Solomon7968 (talk) 20:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

    Hey there,
    Thanks for the vote of confidence. I'm not exactly an expert on classical music, but I'm interested in the subject. Beginning with Beethoven is a good decision, you could then go on to Mozart, Vivaldi and Bach (for some reason I'm not too fond of Haydn, even Bach took some time to get used to). I don't know much about opera, but you could try The Barber of Seville and William Tell if you're interested (Verdi, Puccini and Rossini). G&S are light operetta, you could have a shot at them. Plenty to laugh at, and Sullivan's music is beautiful (try the productions in which John Reed sings...) There are a lot of good works, these are the highlights (or at least what I think are the highlights), again, feel free to explore on your own :)
    (I love Karajan's interpretations, by the way. Bernstein too, haven't gotten about to listening to the real masters yet. Toscanini, Klemperer, the likes.)
    Have fun. Regards, C. F. 12:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
    Also forgot to mention, Liszt and Chopin are my personal favourites for piano works, if you like them. You might also want to ask around on Wikisource for suggestions, I have a feeling @Beeswaxcandle: will know more than I do ;) C. F. 12:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
    This should keep me busy for some time now, thanks! I could do with some more practical advice though. I was lucky enough the 7 hr Karajan Symphonies were available on YouTube. Basically I am looking for Audio pieces of similar length. Are those available for Mozart and Bach?
    I get only Audio won’t do for operas. Now when you say "listening to the real masters" I wonder did you heard them in computer (through YouTube etc.) or in a live show? And how many instruments can you play? Solomon7968 (talk) 13:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
    I'm not really sure, you'll probably have to dig around a bit to find something like that for Mozart &c. Or, if you're patient enough, you could just get to work and listen to all the symphonies, in order (I did that for Mozart, but Haydn is just too intimidating (100+ works ain't my cup of tea...), listened to Bach's Brandenburg Concertos the same way). There's this YouTuber Am4d3usM0z4rt who's uploaded a good deal of Mozart. The works he's uploaded are all pitched one semitone higher than the original though; if you can live with that, give it a try.
    Operas are basically meant for both watching and listening to; however, the music by itself is worth listening to too. And unfortunately no, I haven't been to any live shows yet, it's just YouTube. Plus I'm way too young to have heard them, even Karajan died years before I was born, more's the pity. (My dad's been to w:Turandot, though, and he says it was really good.)
    If you want to find more good pieces, on the other hand, you could try searching for "100 top classical music pieces" or something of the sort. :) Regards,C. F. 13:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)