User talk:Cygnis insignis

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archives[edit]

[edit]

TO WIT: A FAREWELL

"And if he move his dwelling-place, his heavens also move
Where'er he goes & all his neighbourhood bewail his loss . . ."

Clever? witty? wonkish and droll?
All true—perhaps—but I think: more
Than these. . . From all that's met my eye—
A Part of that Immortal Sky.[1]

Londonjackbooks
2011

Salutations![edit]

(no response necessary) Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello 'London' :) CYGNIS INSIGNIS 23:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


Transclusion Index:The fireside sphinx.djvu[edit]

Continuing my slooow checking and I see that Index:The fireside sphinx.djvu is transcribed though not transcluded. If you want someone else to do it, then please ping me, and I will get to it within the week. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: I thought the quality of the transcript was doubtful, after LJB revealed my idea of 'proofread' is somewhat less than that. Sorry for the late reply, CYGNIS INSIGNIS 15:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Sartor Resartus, &c.[edit]

With the exception of problematic p. 70, Sartor Resartus is proofread. Noting that there is a Gutenberg version already hosted here, I wasn't sure what your intentions were with regard to transclusion, so I will leave that to you, unless you leave instruction. I was also not sure if you intended to perform magic with the Index.

In other matters, Repplier's essay collections (in PD) are now all proofread. Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Problematic p. 70 is no longer a problem. Went ahead and transcluded Index; it was begging. Hoping I have done so satisfactorily. Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, I'll say it[edit]

Good to see 'Cygnis insignis' pop up in RC earlier. With no unrealistic hopes that you'll stick around, I do hope you are well. Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:56, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

And good to hear from you, as always. I'm trying to tidy up other busyness and focus on several projects here, later this year. When I reflect on the work I have done here, the texts we collaborated on are the highlights. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 11:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Me too, for different reasons. It was a lifeline. I've been validating Repplier's works thinking I might nominate the lot of her essays for FT some day. See you around!— Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
I would think that is a fine idea :) I will look over your completed texts to see if the Repplier essays can be improved; your suggestions are welcome, of course. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 15:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I will be around WS sporadically the next few weeks, as we are in the process of moving. Packers are here as I write, so I am editing to keep from being tempted to be too controlling over the process :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:54, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

ahhh[edit]

you have been around after all Jarrah Tree (talk) 13:31, 12 May 2018 (UTC) Today I found someone on wp en (if it is genuine...) approximateley one edit a year for the last 10 years... Jarrah Tree (talk) 13:40, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@JarrahTree: so busy elsewhere, so many storms, is that an excuse? I vhecked my contribs, random and infrequent is my signature, but thanks for keeping tabs on that. Call that number sometime, me erstwhile shipmate. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 14:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
shiver me timbers, argghh me long lost lard of lubber, youve still got some salt in your lungs, not a land living waster yet me hearty Jarrah Tree (talk) 00:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Template:Folk-Lore link[edit]

I believe that I have successfully implemented the publications "Folk-Lore Record"/"The Folk-Lore Journal"/"Folk-Lore" into Template:Folk-Lore link. Somewhat unfortunate that "The Folk-Lore Journal" was the base for the existing template, as that is now somewhat quirky switch between from the base publication. Should be finished updating all existing links today, and will better document the additional functionality. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:55, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Emu not EMU[edit]

Hello! I have started to create a pagelist. It is easily reverted if you envisioned something different or I can get back to it soonish. The scrollbar on the index is just paste from the Help but it is useful for not scrolling when creating the pagelist.

Cool journal! I am glad to see it here. Should get The Auk up here also....--RaboKarbakian (talk) 15:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi. All I could get was an abstract for an article, so I converted my frustration into a solution. I found an important fact that proves an assumed idea, so I couldn't be happier. I would probably get some joy out of that august journal too. Any help is greatly appreciated, there are page skips for the twenty odd plates. I can ignore the scroll bar, I'm not a fan; though I see the value in having the ToC adjacent to the index, the browser's scroll is less fiddly, is familiar, and at my fingertips anywhere on the page. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 15:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
{{Scrollpane}} If you prefer a different one. I have very few opinions about this. Index:Bird-lore_Vol_01.djvu uses a template I pasted from the help, previously.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 18:29, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Maybe I should have started this on the talk page. I have been needing to talk to @Hesperian: about Portal:Taxonomy instead of Portal:Genus species. Journals are a good place to start to talk. I am stuck at thinking about the scientific vs vulgare articles and how to manage the lists; all I can think of is by date. Bibliographies make their own lists. I wonder if the brits have a bird journal.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 18:29, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Ask an admin to move without redirect[edit]

With a whack of pages in Page: ns, it is preferable to get an admin to move the pages without a redirect. Can also do the index page at the same time if required. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:27, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Why did you delete pages in that index without moving them? — CYGNIS INSIGNIS 08:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
You marked the parent index page for deletion, which indicated to me that you had finished as the underlying pages need to be deleted. I have recovered the two "not proofread"pages and put them in place. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Show me where I did that, that is, restore the page and index history. There will be a few more questions, take some time to consider your replies. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 18:22, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Two Page: ns pages have been recovered and moved over per your request. If you didn't add the deletion components, they must have been artefacts of other deletion requests, my apologies if they were prematurely deleted. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Not exactly what I requested. Have you restored the history of index? I haven't checked again. Those page histories show what I recall, there was no tag to delete, Your second sentence is not understood, but given my frustration I'm reading it as gas-lighting, "artefacts", with a conditional apology. "if".
Based on what you said, I invested more time in trying to establish what happened, I didn't want to be casting aspersions over my own mistake (I intensely dislike causing trouble for others). Are you willing to strike your comment that says otherwise? I would appreciate that if you do. Please also show me links to the Page and Index history by posting them here, and we can unfold the next concern. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 11:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
No I haven't restored the deleted index file, it shouldn't be merged, so what is the purpose of an undeletion? My "if ... then" statement was not saying that you did or did not do something, it if not A, then the "then" statement to how I managed the listing (artefacts = what happens with transclusions). I am not going to dig dig dig without a purpose, I am not accusing you of anything, or saying that you did anything wrong, or laying any blame. If you say that I prematurely deleted, I will accept that, and I will fix whatever needs fixing. Index/Page deletions where pages have been moved leaving redirects are a PITA and messy, which was why I did the initial comment, nothing more, just trying to avoid them into the future. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
@Billinghurst:I want the history to show what happened, and when, and have asked that they be linked here. I gave careful thought to how to resolve my title error with the least time and effort, especially for others as it was my failure to correct the upload tool's mistake. I realised my mistake, but continued to proof and save when I confirmed what and where the article I wanted was. The index and pages, less than a dozen, would have taken me about a minute to move and check. I have done it suppressing redirects when I had that tool, for myself and others, always satisfactorily I believe and never heard otherwise.
I've done it before this way and you have given no reason not to do it again. This will lead to a similar outcome, and I want to discuss why I found the incident problematic and point out the consequences. I had three pages to go when you made your announcement, taking over without a nod from me and demonstrating very little care or consideration for the outcome. That is the generous interpretation! When I returned the next day, I had to puzzle out what happened to the content I thought I created!? You had messed it up in the worst way possible, then you avoided showing the history that reveals that. I think I have been pretty gentle with you under the circumstances, and the history of your interventions.
I've been in the mood to contribute content, hopefully useful to others, so ignored the notices here while focussing on that elsewhere. You are doubling-down on your opinion that in some way my approach was the problem, yet again, and that is only the beginning of my troubles. Venturing beyond this page, glancing at my watchlist, and so on is likely to be unproductive; I don't trust you to act responsibly and so consider myself effectively blocked. Please do as I ask, restore the history and link it here. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 17:00, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Here is the history. No real value in undeleting. Page history

   (diff) 20:22, 6 July 2018 . . Cygnis insignis (talk | contribs | block) (424 bytes) (probably complete)
   (diff) 19:49, 6 July 2018 . . Cygnis insignis (talk | contribs | block) (148 bytes) (interim save)

which would indicate that it was artefact in that a transcluded page was putting in the delete template. I believed that you had moved the pages you wanted moved, put in a deletion request, which I did and cleaned up. Nothing more, nothing less. I am not doubling down on anything, and making no negative assertions or accusations. My initial comment was simply asked that you ask an admin to move pages from page namespace so we don't have to remove redirects and other cleanups, they are messy, and this is an indication of how they get messy. Having an admin do them gets them moved all together in a minute, and away we go. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:56, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Restore the history. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 12:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC) 14:21, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
That is undeleting the fileindex page. They cannot be done independently. It will show you nothing further, except the old page and the old empty transclusions. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:42, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
The file still exists. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 12:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Oops, I meant index page, the file does exist, and won't show anything particularly. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:34, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
That is the history. Is it an undeletion that you are requesting of the Index: page, that can occur, it will show that history, and little else. What are you wishing to occur and to what purpose? — billinghurst sDrewth 01:24, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
You have no business deleting history, and your latest intervention is an example of why that is the norm. The long-standing consensus at wikis is 'this is a not-good practice' and the onus is on the user to justify why there should be an exception according to established criteria. You can continue to spin falsehoods about what happened, loading your sentences with subjective terms for my orderly and unobjectionable cleanup, and make up 'rules' to justify shouldering me aside and doing something that was obviously wrong. I am now asserting this was intentionally disruptive. You know I value revision history, you swept away another request to restore another page (without a word to me). It doesn't interfere with your objectives.
You coming anywhere near my edits is pretty average under the circumstances, at best it is thoughtless and insensitive, it has almost always been unwelcome and guaranteed to waste my time. You ought to have restored and merged the history as a matter of course, do that now and we can discuss how you can keep out of the way any unobjectionable contributions. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 15:52, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Page talk:The Emu volume 3.djvu/257[edit]

G'day, it's great to be seeing you around the place again, and thanks for getting in touch. I'm a bit more busy in real life these days, so getting less done here. Yes that stuff is 'my cup of tea', and it even makes me feel slightly enthusiastic to renew my engagement in that kind of thing. But only slightly. I daresay nothing will come of it.... Hesperian 07:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Slight enthusiasm achieved! I did well to sell someone on murky black-and-white images of … the middle of nowhere. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 11:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

time[edit]

@RaboKarbakian: Please don't bother others with problems of your own making, particularly one of the few good admins here (your vague request at LBJ's page about WikiData conundrums). As you well know, you created those items at a sister site and so it is up to you to resolve it there; whoever you are, your neophyte/adept persona is wearing thin. — CYGNIS INSIGNIS 14:18, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

What do I say?... @RaboKarbakian: @Cygnis: I have created my own share of problems here and elsewhere over time—also at times asking for WD help from WS contributors. Often, knowledge of the works/nature of the works themselves helps one's perspective when attempting to untangle related data over there. And for other reasons. No matter, I may not be the best contributor to help resolve this one. As a few days have passed since this issue was raised, I hope all has since been resolved. Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Le Corbeau (Mallarmé)[edit]

Hi,

I'm not sure to understand, why did you revert me on Le Corbeau (Mallarmé)? Now, with your version, the text contains some "Page:Le Corbeau (Mallarmé)/undefined" while my version doesn't have these bugs.

Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 08:49, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

You do not know why that 'bug' is occurring, seriously? — CYGNIS INSIGNIS 09:29, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
I know why the "Page:Le Corbeau (Mallarmé)/undefined" appears, what I don't understand is why you are doing that? And why are you now putting back the French pages on the English Wikisource when it's already on the French Wikisource? Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 09:37, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Because you blanked the pages and marked it without text. Please revalidate the text, your action has overwritten that. Secondly, this is a featured text, you need to reopen that discussion if you disagree. The work contains french and english, what is the concern with that? CYGNIS INSIGNIS 09:42, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
My "concern" is that for more than a decade, I worked on English texts on English Wikisource and on French texts on French Wikisource (and same for other languages). I don't see why this book should be treated differently. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 09:57, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't see the relevance, or why that allows a unilateral override of the several users involved. I don't know how to respond without stating the obvious, many books contain one language, some contain both?! This hasn't affected your ten years of contribution in the eight years it has existed. I would prefer that the page validation is restored before you respond again, that is not cool. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 10:15, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
I switch back Page:Le Corbeau (traduit par Stéphane Mallarmé).djvu/8 to green but fr:Page:Le Corbeau (traduit par Stéphane Mallarmé).djvu/8 was already green (and since 2007, you only create the duplicate here in 2010). What should we do now? Keep both duplicates? That's not how bilingual books are usually treated on Wikisources, why making an exception for this one? Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 10:32, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
I see the onus being on objectors to the existence of a duplicate text. I can honestly only think of one excuse and it is an unsatisfactory reason or I would not have created the text here, because I take my contributions to main spaces of wikimedia very seriously and think my credibility is dependent on it, that is, I am not trying to make a point or interfere with others legitimate contributions. :| Thank you for agreeing to restore the validation status. — CYGNIS INSIGNIS 12:06, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Duplication is bad in itself and should be avoided. Treating similar text in different ways should also be avoided. Finally, putting the French text on both French and English Wikisource make the bilingual view look -at best- strange (the two texts are not in parallel anymore). Do you really want to keep it that way? Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 12:31, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
I am not seeing a rationale, but I will read this again tomorrow and see if I discover this "bad" consequence. Without checking, I don't see how the always erratic bilingual view would be a concern if the text is localised (Although always someone insisting on more elaborate solutions). I would like to focus on something else now, and would prefer if you continued this discussion in a day or two. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 13:20, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
@VIGNERON: hi again. Is this is still regarded as a problem for our example? I appreciate that it conflicts with a function that offers parallel texts, however, my current opinion is that side-by-side view is redundant when the original text provides both. There may a benefit in arranging the text to the format of the source at each language site, but mutual tranclusion would only be valuable when that is not provided (such as a work that translates another 'standard text'). There are two principles I did not mention, preserving the arrangements of the physical text (integrity, not printing constraints) and allowing access and reuse (that is, simple, unadorned and portable) when creating and displaying our transcripts. — CYGNIS INSIGNIS 05:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Stumbled across[edit]

some works by Edward Atkinson Hornel at Commons while looking for a painting to accompany a poem. I was not familiar with the artist. Perhaps it is because his style of painting reminds me of illustrations from various works that have been added to WS... some are quite sweet; anyhow, they brought me here, so thought I'd share. Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:44, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

The early works are lovely, and very reminiscent of the most memorable illustrations included in our collaborations; it was a golden age in the quality of illustration in affordable prints. I think I saw a piece in U.K., and may have seen the name in connection with Arts and Craft movement which had a foothold in Scotland (and the US, sort of), but you would already be a fan if you have seen it. Thanks for reintroducing me, I'm having another look at the series Geishas In A Japanese Garden and on, the period's ultra-fashionable fascination with things Japanese is always a delight. A nice digression from the sobering texts I'm immersed in, and I prefer to remember to take a break, so if there is something I can read and validate here then feel free to remind me of another task I've left undone. — CYGNIS INSIGNIS 11:32, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Hmm. Not left undone, but since you ask, there is a Repplier essay ("The Pietist") in Index:A happy half-century and other essays.djvu that I can not validate as having proofread myself. But only at your leisure, for I still have a ways to go validating the rest of the work. Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Nop seems to be working just fine, but then your words are often beyond my ken :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Well that is not good news, it is not my aim to be obscure. The number of returns before the template seems to have changed again. The template performs no operation (nop) except stopping the empty line/s before it from being ignored by the software. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 05:18, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
You are not obscure, but I may be dim. All I can attest to is whether the template appears to be doing its perceived (by me) job—without my understanding why or how. It seems to be doing its job in the Main, no? Londonjackbooks (talk) 07:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Took me a cup of coffee and a pão com chouriço... Yes, it performs its function with no line breaks, apparently ;) Londonjackbooks (talk) 08:05, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
The poem survived archiving, I see. I am fond of it :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 05:26, 6 November 2018 (UTC)