User talk:John Carter

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search

Thanks for the link[edit]

I saw the link you left to your userpage and added it to mine here to look at. I have copies of a couple of these, I just need to scan them in. I have access to several more as well. I don't know much about Wikisource though so it may be a while. Besides, I need to finish licking my wounds from that discussion on ENWP. You would think if I am as bad as people say they wouldn't have to lie and include stuff I didn't do to justify it but oh well. I guess banning people for simple comments on my own talk page that can be ignored or removed from their watchlist is a thing there now. Small wonder why editors are leaving. Anyway, I'll try and scan some of these in. Reguyla (talk) 22:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Scanning in all isn't necessary. Many or most are probably available over at internet archive, or They also tend to have automated full text versions of the works in question, which can in some cases provide an at least rough version of full works. I know for a lot of what I have done here I have, basically, done a split screen on the computer with the left half the text and the right half the scan and compared one to the other and make corrections as necessary. Then, on those days I choose to, more or less copy the proofread text to the editable box on the page. I find I can get a bit more done in less internet time that way, and also still spend any other free time I want to devote to it away from good connections as well.
So far as I can tell, most books I listed are available over at internet archive, like I said, both in the pdf version and the full text version. And I know some I have already uploaded to commons, although I haven't been particularly good at turning them into indexes. Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography has all its index pages already created, although you might want to contact someone with more experience regarding formatting issues, because I suck at that still. And Wikisource:WikiProject Biographical dictionaries shows quite a few other works which are already prepared as indexes and just basically need proofreading. Some of those works, particularly The Biographical Dictionary of America, I think, will contain some of the best content to generate here for eventual inclusion at wikipedia. And, particularly with older biographical material in general, most of it really doesn't change that much, so the older bios are probably still in many cases not that different from the most current ones. User:Charles Matthews is of course the man responsible for bringing the British DNB here, and he honestly knows a lot more about transcribing full books than I do, but I think he would be willing to maybe at least offer a little help, and when he gets the ping from my naming him might be willing to help with the formatting and such. John Carter (talk) 22:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, maybe I'll ping them later or at least look at their edits and see what they are doing where I can help out. Maybe. I just noticed HighinBC is Chillum. That makes a lot more sense why they have made about 30 edits to that discussion. BTW, you mentioned my participation in other projects. One is here. That's where I spend most of my time. A lot of it uses ENWP content as a base, but there are several thousand ENWP doesn't have as well including a bunch of Medal of Honor recipient related ones, ships, some that have been migrated from the German and French Wikipedia's etc. I also cleaned up and expanded a lot of others. I have a bunch more written I was hoping to add to ENWP but I'll just add them there now. I just need to clean them up a bit first (delink some stuff and remove some templates not used there). Its also the only Wikia project that links to Commons (unless that's changed in the last couple months). Reguyla (talk) 22:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
@Reguyla: He should get the pings here and at your userpage, so when he logs on, and he seems to regularly, he may contact you on your user talk apge. Regarding the medal of honor recipients in particular, if you have .pdf's or .djvu's of the documents in which they are officially given the medal, or can find them over at or elsewhere, they can certainly be added here. I think, maybe, Wikisource:WikiProject NARA and particularly the individual we have over at NARA providing us with the documents there, @Dominic:, might be able to help get some of them. If those documents, or others like them, are shorter than a lot of books, and many will I think be, getting them through to validation, the final step here, and ready to for importation, might be not that hard. And it is certainly possible that they might have fuller biographies, or base or other histories, and so on and on and on. If he knew we had a few editors here who were really interested in developing that content, and I could certainly at least help, I think he would be very, very happy to get the documents he can. John Carter (talk) 23:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Actually there are several of them on Commons as well. Quite a few are also available on sites like Arlington Cemetery.Net, Hall of Valor and Find a grave. Since they are works of the government, they are not the copyright holders and thus it should be allowable. But I recognize we should use the Government source and not those sites as the owner, creator, publisher, etc. I live in DC and work a couple blocks from the NARA DC building so I can just run to the NARA and get them (although many are at the College park campus). I have worked with Dominic in the past and we have met in person (not that he would remember me mind you). I have a couple hundred citations scanned already. I was planning on going to at least one of the days this weekend at the WikiUSA meetup there at the NARA but with the ENWP turn of events I may not. Although I could still get some stuff done for commons or even Wikia so I may still make an appearance and shake a few hands. There's a few folks going I wouldn't mind saying hi to so I don't know. Reguyla (talk) 23:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
If they are US government works, that means that there is no copyright restriction in the US, and we can freely upload them and use them. I know quite a few source already here which have been introduced on that basis. And we could, reasonably, take them from any reliable site, those you mentioned or others. I've mentioned this over at the AN discussion to, and asked for input from Worm and Dennis. I think, and actually kind of hope, that maybe, if nothing else, a topic-limited block lift might be something that might be considered. I know the discussion there could be closed shortly, but, having asked for their input, I at this point can still hold out some hope. John Carter (talk) 23:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Its rather surprising to me that you, as someone who went out of their way to make sure my community unban decision got pulled last October by blowing up my talk page and then claiming disruption, seem to be going out of your way to allow me to edit. Don't worry about it though. There is so many false accusations on that discussion and pile on opposes no one even knows why it was started. I was accused of Vandalism (didn't do any), Joe Jobbing (didn't do that either but had some Joe Jabbing me), accusations of disruption where there is none, etc. It all just excuses to keep me blocked and there are enough poicies in place that regardless of any restrictions they can justify that pretty easily. That discussion was not started about the comment, it was started to review the unblock itself and most folks haven't even mentioned the comment. Just years old grudges. Most of the Ban supporters would have Supported the ban regardless of what I did and its mostly the same ones that have kept me out for years. For a variety of reasons. Reguyla (talk) 23:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I very, very much regret that you seem to be indulging in the same rather paranoic tendencies and lack of self-awareness that you have rather regularly displayed to date. Your rather ridiculous misuse of the request for unblock template, earlier, in which you boasted of having violated your ban and made rather obviously self-serving statements about yourself, honestly, does nothing to indicate to me that you are still far from being able to recognize that the reason your block request, more than once, was that at roughly halfway through the then-current block you added a request to unblock which clearly was anything but a real request, but, rather, just a self-serving scree. You still do not seem to recognize that such obvious disruption, and not only disruption but boasting about violations of policy, would be enough to basically irritate the hell out of anybody, and, in and of itself, be sufficient to believe that you are not particularly interested in building an encyclopedia, but rather simply continue self-dramatizing promotion of a bit of a martyr complex. A person who really had interests in building an encyclopedia in accord with the policies and guidelines of the site would not so obviously, arrogantly, and rather obnoxiously flaunt them as you did in those unblock requests. I have known you, on and off, for some time, remember. You can be a good content developer, and we need those, but you also have rather regularly displayed a degree of self-regard which has struck me for some time as being perhaps excessive. There were good and valid reasons for your blocks, particularly including your repeatedly boasting at several locations that you were acting in outright defiance and contempt for the basic rules and policies and guidelines which any entity needs to be able to function effectively. I very, very sincerely hope that, at some point, you realize that the primary thing most people see in you is someone who has repeatedly gone out of his way to basic give the finger to the projects policies and guidelines. That seems to be one of the factors in your recent broader block Risker mentioned at Worm's wikipedia user talk page. Everyone in a collaborative project needs to be able to display at least a little humility. I regret to say that I don't know that I have ever seen any from you. John Carter (talk) 14:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
John what are you even talking about? That discussion is full of people who are blatantly lying to get me banned. People are accusing me of vandalism, disruption and Joe Jobbing and I haven't done anything. I was blocked for a month for "disruption" when there was no disruption. Sure I left a comment on my talk page. That was rather short and limited in scope. Maybe if people quite lying to justify an unnecessary ban then I would not be as frustrated and disappointed as I am. Sure I have done some things wrong, but I am not the only one and I take offense at the accusation that I am not here to collaborate and build an encyclopedia. For more than a year I have done absolutely nothing but positive edits. My recent block by Neil was bullshit clear and through but he was looking for a reason and he was going to find one. I am not flaunting anything. But that ban discussion is about me and how I and so horrible. Its not about the community, its not about the individuals in the community who will do anything to prevent me from editing, its about me and my ability to edit. My ongoing block does absolutely nothing but show how petty some people are and how some people are unwilling to let things go. Editing Wikipedia and adding content, reverting vandalism and fixing problems is not a disruption. People deleting it, reverting it (including restoring vandalism) and lying and manipulating policy (or ignoring it completely) absolutely does cause a disruption to the site. That discussion is a disruption to the site. But that discussion is not my fault. I do not want it, I did not deserve it and frankly its just another example of some people in the community trying to get their way. They submitted ban requests until they got the result they wanted, the (including you) created a disruption on my talk page last October to justify blocking me because you and they opposed my being able to edit and the same thing is happening now. Its nothing but bully's preventing the project from improvement by preventing a high output editor from contributing. Reguyla (talk) 16:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh, you did mention to Chillum (HighinBC) about their conduct. Of course it won't change, but thanks for at least mentioning it. I just read that. I really need to go read all the comments completely, I have only read about half of it since its so hyperbolic and non factual. Reguyla (talk) 17:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Please close that discussion[edit]

Not sure if you will get this in time but please close or ask someone else to close that discussion. All its doing is attracting trolls and giving people who don't like me and have been trying to get rid of me for years a platform to rant. That subset of the community clearly has no interest in moving on and the ones that have stated in private they want me back haven't stepped up. I'm an imperfect person and I admit I messed up with the comment but clearly the community has no desire to follow the 3 strikes stipulation that Worm put out there and I no longer want to participate in a project where so many people, many of which are among the worst the Wikipedia project has to offer, are so vocally able to levy personal attacks, insults and lies without anyone at all saying a word. That discussion not only shows their hatred of me but their intolerance and general demeanor and shows everyone just how negative and ugly to one another people on that project are allowed to be. I did expect it when I was working with Worm on the return and contrary to popular belief I have had precisely zero chances to return. Had I gotten one, that would indicate I was able to edit in some capacity outside my talk page which I have not been able to do without someone creating a disruption and then blaming me for it. You and others created a disruption on my talk page to justify changing the outcome you didn't agree with so I never even got to edit. I have enough problems, I don't need to get blamed for disruptions like that discussion just because my name is in it. Worm obviously doesn't have the clout, authority, confidence or respect of the community we thought he did to make a decision to help me back into the project. So there is no need to continue that discussion any further. I can find plenty to do on Wikia, here, Commons, Wikidata, Simple and others. But ENWP is too full of people looking to find excuses to ban people for any little thing and too unwilling to let shit go and grow up. So please share with them my blessing to close that discussion with any result they want. Reguyla (talk) 16:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


Congrats, you guys got what you wanted. Reguyla (talk) 20:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikilinks in text[edit]

Thanks for validating The Rosary (Forrest). I just want to bring up the links you are adding as I left them out deliberately. It is my understanding that linking to Wikipedia in text isn't desirable. Based on WS:Links and WS:ANN it would appear that, while links to WS Author and mainspace pages are okay, linking to Wikipedia is only okay if there is already a separate copy of the work that doesn't have the wikilinks in them. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@Beleg Tâl: You're right. I was operating on something I had been told earlier elsewhere, which indicated such links were acceptable, but this is apparently a different situation. I skwewed up, I'll start fixing them now. John Carter (talk) 19:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I really LIKE this comment[edit]

"I was myself thinking about the FT process. Because I was thinking maybe one featured text per month might not be particularly impressive to first-time viewers of the main page. Is there any sort of process out there to determine which "verified" works are good enough to meet FTC requirements, and, I suppose, although this probably will create more trouble than it is worth, particularly considering that right now there aren't enough featured text candidates, and particularly if there were any sort of clear-cut way to determine whether something met FTC standards, might there be any way to alternate the selection of featured texts more frequently, even if that meant using, for instance, short stories, or really long articles in journals or encyclopedias, or similar works?" John Carter (talk) 23:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I've formatted this comment right, but I really like your comment about bringing multiple FT pages to the main page in Wikisource. But I'm not sure where the manpower is to come from for Wikisource administration and editing. From what I see, it's an obscure website for various nerds. [I happen to be a bit of a nerd, so I don't take nor intend to give offense using the word "nerd".] I don't know how to fix this Wikisource problem. But I'm glad you're working on it!! :) Outlier59 (talk) 01:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Dictionary of Mormonism[edit]

Rather than listing every entry in Category:Mormonism alphabetized as beginning with "A", it might be wise to sort them alphabetically by the entry headword (title) instead. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not listing them all in that category, but you're right. John Carter (talk) 22:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)