User talk:Zhaladshar/archive 9

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The Cambridge History of American Literature[edit]

I just found this, and wow, I'm amazed. Reading bits and pieces tells me that this is an amazingly valuable work. I almost wish I was back in high school; using this as a source would have really improved my English papers. I noticed that you've done a good chunk of the content adding, so I was wondering where you got it. I don't see it on PG, but it is on bartleby.com. If I want to help get the rest of it on Wikisource, what do you suggest I do? --Spangineerwp (háblame) 14:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Dummy edit[edit]

Dummy edit to opt into Interiot's edit counter's graphs.

The Hunchback of Notre Dame[edit]

Relative Links[edit]

Thanks for pointing out the way relative links work. I used them on the Ulysses header (without knowing the details of how they worked), but for Hunchback I've been kind of rushed and didn't have time to figure it out. I'm a Wikipedia girl and Wikisource's differences are new to me, so I'm learning as I go...

Oh, and about Roman numerals vs. numbers; I asked on the Wikisource:Requests for assistance page but it got looked over. In the contents the chapters are listed as I, II, III etc., so should I keep them that way ([[/Book First/Chapter I]]) or should I change them ([[/Book 1/Chapter 1]]) in the page titles and on the header?

Thanks for your help! --Editor at Large 15:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Roman vs. Arabic numerals[edit]

Okay, thanks. I'll go through and change it. I remembered seeing somewhere that numbers should be used, but I thought I'd check before I got any further... --Editor at Large 15:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't remember where, but if I find it I'll let you know. Thanks for all your help -- I'll leave you alone now! --Editor at Large 15:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Reverted page move[edit]

Okay, thank you again. I have no idea why all the headers said L. Frank Baum, and why I didn't catch that before. I copied the original from the Wizard of Oz page and then touched it up, but I know I changed the author name. I must have copied the one header that I didn't fix.

Thanks for being patient with me. I like to think I'm helpful on Wikipedia, but here I seem to be causing more work for you than anything else! My talk page in the less-than-24-hours I've been here is already longer than the talk page on Wikipedia I've had for two years.

I'm enduring summer loneliness at the moment so I apologise if I ramble... --Editor at Large 17:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Changes to header on Hunchback[edit]

:-D All right, I'll take you at your word...

Now, would these changes to The Hunchback of Notre Dame/Book First/Chapter I be okay?

{{Header
|previous= 
|next= [[../Book 1/Chapter 2|Book 1, Chapter 2]]→
|title=[[../../]]
|section= (Book 1, Chapter 1)
|author= Victor Hugo
|notes= <div align="center">Translated from the original French by Isabel F. Hapgood</div>
}}

to

 {{Header
|previous= 
|next= [[../../Book First/Chapter II|Book First, Chapter II]]→
|title=[[../../]]
|section= (Book First, Chapter I: The Grand Hall)
|author= Victor Hugo
|notes= <div align="center">Translated from the original French by Isabel F. Hapgood</div>
}}

changes being

  • "Book 1" to "Book first",
  • "Chapter 2" to "Chapter II",
  • "../Book 1/Chapter 2" to "../../Book First/Chapter II" (so link doesn't appear as "The Hunchback of Notre Dame/Book First/Book First/Chapter II", and
  • the addition of the chapter name in the section title

? I'm only asking because I don't want to make you go back and change it all again. I based my header (or what I wanted it to look like) off the header on the Wizard of Oz pages. Their section titles have the chapter name, so I thought that was standard procedure... Of course, different pages are by different people, and people have their differences! --Editor at Large 20:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for changing the translator links (yes, I am scatter-brained; I knew I should put Author: before her name), but I think the book numbers should be kept in the chapter headings.
I was planning on going through Book First and changing them to "Book First, Chapter #" as well. There are six "Chapter I"s in Hunchback, and if I accidentally click on "Chapter I Book Second" under the contents, when I see "Chapter I" in the heading I'm going to assume that I'm on the first chapter in the book. Likely I won't think to look at the main header to check.
I'm just wondering what your reasons for changing it are, so I know for future reference. Thanks! --Editor at Large 23:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thank you for welcoming me into the community and I look forward to helping in any way I can. My main focus at the moment is to try to cut down on the number of orphaned pages as it is easy to do and I hope could be considered to help the project. I am glad to help wikisource as it helped me find two stories that I love, the lottery and the bet. Both of which I am hoping to record for Librivox.org. --Skinnedmink 21:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Stable versions[edit]

To see a screen shot of what I was talking about on IRC go here and it is slide #20.--BirgitteSB 00:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Cowper Biography[edit]

Zhaladshar, I'm sorry I don't understand the distinction you are making between biographies and religious doctrine like the Bible or Koran and their commentaries, so as to exclude it from the Religious texts page. A religious biography is of concern to the knowledge and history of the faith because it describes the circumstances in which significant contributions to that the faith are made. It can also be considered inspirational literature. Further, it shows how faith is put into practice in concrete situations. These various roles that religious biography plays (there may be more that don't come to my mind at the moment) is what makes it general Christian literature. Surely we can find space on the page for such biographies, can we not? 64.154.26.251 17:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Religious texts is exclusively a list of documents which are official doctrines and canon of a religion. While a biography of William Cowper is religious in nature, it's different from the Book of Mormon and the Rig Veda as it is not an "official" work of Christianity (it does not assert any kind of belief of Christianity or one of its denominations). This is not to reduce the import of Cowper's biography, but the way we have defined our religious texts page, it is supposed to be for doctrinal and canonical documents.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 18:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I can see the benefit of having such a page, Zhaladshar, even if it orphans the miniscule number of religious texts outside its domain. I would suggest someone change the sub-heading of the page to be more specific, however (right now it just says "religious works").
Let me ask you something else: your definition of the texts page seems to exclude the early church writing History of Joseph the Carpenter as it is neither doctrinal nor canonical. Are such early texts then, considered to be grandfathered in? 64.154.26.251 18:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Hm, you're right about History of Joseph the Carpenter. That page is in dire need of a revamp, and one of those might be changing the name to be more clear about what the page is supposed to include. Taking the non-canonical work into account (and the fact I'm not familiar with any other religion on that page but Christianity), I can only say that (initally) the page was meant to be for works regarded as important by a given religion--or have some kind of import to the development of the religion. Even still, a biography of Cowper, while still important, is not meant to be included on that page. It would be more appropriate over at Wikisource:Biography.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 22:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

<poem> tag[edit]

I noticed you added a "<poem>" tag, but it didn't appear to affect the text's appearance, so i reverted it. Is it a MediaWiki-specific tag? Because I've never heard of it. 216.195.148.149 01:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. It makes no automatic changes to the text, but it makes formatting poems easier. Any line breaks in the edit box are kept on the display page (meaning we don't have to use <br /> tags), and allows us to do text formatting (creating links, italics, etc.). It's a very new tag that was created only within the last month.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 01:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

CommonsTicker: new version, new features[edit]

Hello. A new version of CommonsTicker will be rolled out soon (probably tomorrow). Please have an eye on what the bot is doing, and report any problems to m:User_talk:Duesentrieb/CommonsTicker. Some of the changes are:

  • the ticker can now post warnings to the talk page of articles that are using "endangered" images. This is not enabled per default, and you can select for which namespaces it is done. If you want this feature, please request it at m:User:Duesentrieb/CommonsTicker#Change_Requests.
  • in append mode, there are now three empty template parameters: status, editor, and notic. The ticker does not use them itself, but you can use them in the TickerEntry template, for example to strike through entries that have been fixed. en:wikinews has already been using this for a while now.
  • if the ticker fails to post an update, a warning is posted to your and the ticker's talk page. In append mode, the ticker will also re-try to post the update on the next pass. Until now, failed updates where simply ignored.
  • edit summaries become a bit more informative.

I hope these changes will help to make CommonsTicker more used and more useful.

On a related note: you may have noticed that on long pages, entries near the bottom of the page are sometimes not expanded but rendered just as {{TickerEntry}} or similar. This is due to a new limit to template expansion - see bugzilla:7005. To avoid it, try to keep the page short and/or try to simplify the TickerEntry template.


This message was posted automatically by the CommonsTicker bot. For feedback and discussion, please go to meta:User talk:Duesentrieb/CommonsTicker -- CommonsTicker 23:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Executive Orders[edit]

Hey,

Right now, PoliticalBot is correcting Clinton's EOs, so you don't have to worry about that. As to the naming convention, I did some research and the results concurred with yours. There are a couple hundred executive orders to be moved, but I think Jude has a script that moves pages. Perhaps he can get Xenophon to do it. However, if the pages were to be moved, do you recommend putting soft redirects? Thanks. - Politicaljunkie 18:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

If you could move the pages, that would be great. I can help as well. - Politicaljunkie 18:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. I just uploaded George H.W. Bush's executive orders and modified the code so that the titles adhere to the naming convention. - Politicaljunkie 19:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm on it! - Politicaljunkie 19:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


Thanks[edit]

Thanks for fixing my title... I had made copies for all of the Don Marquis title overlaps; I'll try to get those all changed to Title(Marquis) instead of Title(Don Marquis). Mathlaura 20:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Asking a favor[edit]

During my registration here, I made a mistake on my name. Could you rename my account for Rafael, o Galvão? thanks Rafae, the Gawain 23:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The Happiest Day[edit]

I've oddly continued an archived discussion. Excuse the vast intervals between my replies :) – Quoth 05:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

From archive:

I'm wondering where you've seen Poe's "The Happiest Day" written as such? As I know it, it was an unnamed work, which is why I'd moved it to (The Happiest Day) and noted on the author's page that "titles given below in parenthesis signify an unnamed or unpublished work." I chose parenthesis since the generally used square brackets are unusable in MediaWiki. I could see the poem being titled "The Happiest Day" (quotation marks included) as using the poem's lines themselves to identify it in lieu of an official name (e.g., "The happiest day, the happiest hour..."). Perhaps this is the case? – Quoth 02:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

While it was published in Tamerlane and Other Poems in 1827, this particular poem — and two others — were published without titles.[1] The poem was only ever published once more during Poe's lifetime (that same year) in a magazine, again untitled. As I said earlier, using the first few words or sentence to identify a work usually wraps them inside quotation marks to show they come directly from the text itself. Since there is a number of Poe's poems which were either never published and/or never named — but have been given generally accepted titles — I've decided to differentiate these with parenthesis. The reason I don't use the quotation marks instead is due to a number of the poems having titles (that were given by others after Poe's death) which are not direct excerpts from the text. Would you mind if I changed it back to (The Happiest Day) to indicate the same information and keep consistancy with the others? – Quoth 09:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Arthur Sullivan[edit]

Er, you deleted this article, however, it's kind of needed in order to collect Gilbert and Sullivan and The Masque at Kenilworth, etc. Unfortunately, I didn't know how to do that. What should I do to make it set up properly? Or should I just concentrate under Author:Arthur Sullivan? Adam Cuerden 15:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, right! Didn't realise that. Ah, well. Mainly found it because someone made a wikisource link over on Wikipedia that pointed to the redirect (I have fixed it now) Adam Cuerden 22:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit war[edit]

Please do not enter into an edit war over this. The issue has not been resolved and fully discussed or resolved. -- Stbalbach 17:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Another Day, Another Encyclopedia for Wikisource[edit]

I had "Complete Encyclopaedia of Music" on my shelf, and when I found out about what wikisource was doing, I glanced at my scanner and thought, "why not?" Add an OCR package purchased from Amazon, and the rest is stubling, fumbling history...

The case-edness for encyclopedia topic entries appears to be near and dear to many folks here. :) Sigh, I already moved the few topics in the encyclopedia to all lowercase, by hand. That took a while. I really really want to make this encyclopedia work with the standards of this site, so I'll uppercase the first letter of the topics. Would it be acceptable to automate that process? I read up on wiki bots, but I'm so new at this wiki stuff, I didn't want to try bots (yet). But, I am very comfortable scripting the heck out of your site, I just don't know if you guys are comforatable!

Or, is there an alternative way to do a bulk rename on the web site, for normal users?

If manual updates are all I've got, then so be it, I can deal.

Hmm, while I'm writing about this, is there a way (other than the Python wiki bots) to bulk update, or bulk mirror, content to wikisource? I am already using a chop-up-and-wiki-format script on these topics, which I then manually submit to the web site (this process I'm fine with, by the way). I see numerous bulk edits/updates in the future of this project, which is why I'm asking. --Damon 20:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Author: Osip Mandelstam[edit]

As you see, I cut off the ©s. Is this better now? (Dmitrismirnov 08:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC))

Stomping on Encyclopedia Edits[edit]

Oops, I'm anonymous user 24.18.230.127. I was working through an upload script to batch adding topics. I'll add the missing headers to the topic files I have on disk. I thought my code had a bug, because it kept telling me the diff on the uploaded topic didn't match what was on disk. Turns out it was you busily reverting anonymous changes. Sorry about that! --Damon 22:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Yup, the notes and section fields are in the topics. I am nearly done with my topic uploader, I'm about to add 369 more topics (another 30 pages). This script is intended for me to make changes to the topic content when I find errors, and to batch upload those changes. It will also batch upload new topics, which is what I mainly wrote it for. --Damon 22:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll request a bot account. I was pretty up front about what I was attempting today. I'll follow the policy on bots, but was there anything in particular that was causing a problem? --Damon 02:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I don't know what goes into the management of this web site, thank you for expaining. I have submitted the bot request. --Damon 02:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Dante[edit]

This helps when you look simultaneously at two pages, for example, English-&-Russian. Without this all text columns would be narrowed, smashed and distorted. I found this solution by my own experience. If you can suggest something better, I will be grateful to you. (Dmitrismirnov 20:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC))

Abusive Sysop[edit]

You previously blessed User:BirgitteSB as sysop. SHE IS ABUSING HER POWER BY PULLING DOWN CONTENT MAKING FALSE CLAIMS OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. SYSOP PRIVILEGES SHOULD BE REVOKED, IMMEDIATELY.

Here is the exact text that was pulled as "copyright" infringment:

Links to legitimate content is NOT a copyright infringement. People have a right to this information!

Sources-Links

This complaining user has been reincluding content to Wikisource that has been previously deleted under G5 and G6. Now he is attacking the reputation of an admin, when the only person he should be upset with is me, the original nominator of the deletion in question. This editor should probably be IP blocked, as he has shown complete disregard for the copyright, inclusion, and civility rules here at Wikisource. - Crockspot 16:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Bot flag for TalBot[edit]

You're listed as a bureaucrat on WS:ADMIN, so I'm requesting a bot flag for my bot, TalBot, in accordance with the bot policy (please tell me if I rather should make this request in the Scriptorium). Here's a summary what the bot achieved (and what trouble it caused):

  • It is active since 5 October 2006.
  • It moved all existing pages from Experimental researches in electricity to the new Page: namespace, placing soft redirects over the old names and making the pages ready for transclusion (protecting the navigation template).
  • It is currently doing the same thing for A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism.
  • The bot had startup problems due to an assignment problem in pywikipedia's namespace translations. A bug report was filed and the bug has been fixed.
  • Page moves behave unexpectedly different from page changes. For one, they are not throttled (not that much of a problem in this special case because the moves are interspersed with puts), and manual throttling via time.sleep interacts badly with pywikipedia's putthrottle. Moreover, failed moves do not raise exceptions, and what's worse, may return None which evaluates to False even if the move succeeds. These problems resulted in the creation of 16 unnecessary pages, which have already been speedily deleted. Two bugs have been filed regarding these issues, but not yet been fixed. The script has been altered to check for exact False returns, so hopefully this problem does not occur again.
  • On very rare occasions, there is a loss of session data, which so far caused two anonymous edits by the bot despite pywikipedia's rule not to edit anonymously. I've not been able to track down or reproduce this problem yet and hope it doesn't occur too often.

All in all, with its teething problems cared for, I believe it is fairly safe to continue operating this bot.--GrafZahl 08:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll copy my request to the Scriptorium. Thanks!--GrafZahl 08:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)