User talk:Anonymous Dissident/Archive 1

Adding texts

Hey AnonDiss, I'm not sure if you're familiar with {{textinfo}}, but it really helps if you use it when adding texts. It's where the source, and other vital information about the text, are stored. There's also a script in preferences (under gadgets) that automatically adds a blank textinfo when you open a talk page to make it easier to fill in.

Cheers, giggy _(:O) 07:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Matthew Arnold

Glad to see someone adding poems by Arnold. He's on my to-do list, but then so are far too many other things! But please don't forget to add appropriate categories, mainly Category:Romantic poetry.--Poetlister 11:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Will do. ---- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

GK Chesterton

Hello Dissident, you missed the chapter Alarms and Discursions/Dukes‎. Str1977 07:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for pointing that little editorial hole out. I have added in the source material and all is well. ---- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

A New Science And Its Findings

Hello, you removed two category tags from this work that I hadn't gotten around to creating yet. Were you just tidying up because the categories didn't exist yet, or did you have some other objection to them? Or, I guess, the real question is do you mind if I put the tags back in and create the categories? Cheers, --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 21:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The categories didn't exist at the time, and I wasn't sure whether they were going to be made or not. I'd suggest that it is usually good practice to crate categories first before inserting them, to prevent this confusion. Thanks again, —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 21:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh heh, I do create the categories first sometimes, but then you get people complaining that you've created a category that doesn't contain anything. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 22:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Touche. :P —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

DNB project

Hi. Can we look to find a compromise position for Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900 rather than the straight removal of the Wikipedia link from header table?

As we transcribe individual articles there will be periods when the WP link text may be absent from each article as we go through our project. As we are transcribing an encyclopaedia, I would think that each article will appear in WP. The removal of the line is going to be nuisance as we step through our checking process. Have you a suggestion to how we can meet our goals, yet not interfere with the work that you are seeing as important. Thanks. -- Billinghurst (talk) 08:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey there. I assume you refer to Todd, Robert Bentley (DNB00)? I don't mean for disruption or anything, I just inserted the correct link to the Wikipedia article in question, a link that was functional. I assure you the default link to "Todd, Robert Bentley (DNB00)" will never go to a Wikipedia article, as the naming format there does not encompass this way of writing names. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I must have looked at the wrong rollback tehn, my apologies. I thought that the link line had been simple a  . We must have crossed in production & correction. I will crawl back to my cave. :-) -- Billinghurst (talk) 08:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No need for apology. MediaWiki still has, unfortunately, a few flaws, and software misunderstandings happen. Cheers, —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Admin

Wouldn't you know, I was just about to go vote on your nomination, and then realised you haven't contributed to Wikisource:Collaboration of the Week yet! Never fear, I'll turn a blind eye for a day or two and then check ;) And yes, politics is a dirty sport :) Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Albert Schweitzer} 08:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Tantalising redlinks. ;-) Giggy (talk) 08:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

And we're even kind enough to include links to where some of the texts can be found, to make it easier for passersby to add them! ;) Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Albert Schweitzer} 08:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll make sure to take a look. :) —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

And I notice that you have only one lonely contribution to the Page namespace. I'll let Giggy tantalise you further. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

WS:TP always needs love. Copy paste/proofreading/other such fun. Giggy (talk) 11:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

And, WS:TP#unsorted projects needs ... sorting. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll try and help out. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I have an idea for boosting the page count [1]; see my post a few moments ago to John: User talk:Jayvdb#Footnotes in Greek. FWIW, I assumed you had a mop. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help with that, but I really have little idea of Greek characters. Sorry. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 21:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

EB1911

In regards to your transcription work on EB1911, I get the feeling from these typos that you are typing it up, which is superior dedication, but umm ... it pains me to point out ... it was kinda unnecessary :-) It is always a good idea to only type up a few sentences of a work, and then hit google with a passion to find an online transcription, which will almost certainly exist for any major work. For EB1911, we have a large slab of the first volume, so grab our local text whenever you can, so we can trace where the text came from.

Still ... bonus points for effort.

p.s. since your playing with EB1911, take a look at Wikisource:Scriptorium#Using ProofreadPage with EB1911. While my opinion is that these djvu files are not what we want in the long run, your work wont be lost. We can migrate these pages to another djvu when we have one upload. Cheers, John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh, I forgot about the old Google. I'll do that from now on; thanks for cleaning up my typos (I actually was aware I was making them, it just seems as if I completely forgot to do a copyedit once I'd finished.) Thanks for your support, too. I'll also take a look at the Scriptorium thread... —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 22:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not work on Index:EB1911 Volume 1 A-Alava.djvu, if you're going to start adding pages? It is part one of two of a better version of the five slices. (I wouldn't recommend adding pages until the discussion gets sorted out.) Psychless 02:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The Death of Huss

Re: Diff, Author:Alfred Austin died in 1913 he will not be 100 years gone for a couple more years. Jeepday (talk) 01:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you're right. I guess it is just an awful habit of mine to use that template, as most of the work I do uses that particular one. Thanks for replacing the templates there. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Page headers in Sanskrit Grammar

As for me, I don't feel much one way or the other on their presence in the Pages, but I do think they should be wrapped in noinclude, as their appearance transcluded into chapters leaves much to be desired. See, for example, Sanskrit Grammar/Chapter I#4, where they tear open a page-spanning paragraph. Prosody (talk) 02:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll do that now. I think they should be added, because, typically, all elements of a Page: are included in the write-up, from what I've seen. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 04:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

That Mysterious Rag

I found a better source at Duke University. Could you check how it's cited? I'm not really used to Wikisource citation formats yet. Best, Durova (talk) 06:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey Durova. Sources typically go on the talk page; see the talk of The Mysterious Rag for an example. Cheers, —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Sysop

Hi,

You are now a sysop. If you know any languages other than English, could you list them on WS:ADMINS? Thanks!—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 16:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Congrats, AD. :) EVula // talk // 17:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Zhaladshar and EVula. :) —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 21:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Now that you're an admin, I don't even have to feel guilty harrassing you :) Here's a German suicide note by Kleist, I can't read it - in part due to sloppiness, in part due to not reading German...better luck for you. Feel free to post it up at Wikisource:Suicide notes when you're done. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Albert Schweitzer} 22:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that scrawl is simply illegible. All I turned up was that it was addressed to his sister. Sorry. Even Google Books failed me this time. :/ —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

deleting redirects

Regarding the redirects you are deleting, one of the tasks of User:Polbot was to create them. They dont seem to fit within any CSD. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

They do. They are broken; under CSD "broken redirects can be deleted at any time." They did not redirect to existing pages and were therefore useless. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, I see. My apologies. I'm not used to seeing so much red on the RC feed, as we mostly "delete" redirects by using {{dated soft redirect}} so that search indexes have time to catch up. But, I can see that there isnt much point in doing so. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Bits broken - HotCats

You said to ask! :-) The Categories: (+) that appears at the bottom of pages doesn't work, well not as it works over on Wikipedia. It does the search box, the lookup, and then the click, however, at that point it takes you into the edit screen, and it doesn't carry over the text to add, and it doesn't save it. It just stops at the edit screen. Thx. -- billinghurst (talk) 04:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

In response, I've noticed this two. I'd love to fix it myself, but I honestly have no idea how. Sorry. I did say I'd be happy to make MW: edits for people, but I don't think HC is related to MediaWiki:. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Ooops my misunderstanding. Thx anyway. -- billinghurst (talk) 12:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. What I will do is chase up the creator of HotCat (I think it is user:White cat...) and ask them about the problem. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

edit tools

Nice work on the edit tools. I'd like to offer a suggestion; when you add a tag to the list, there should be a + in the right place, i.e. between paired tags. That serves as a placeholder for the cursor, or the highlighted text to be formatted. -Steve Sanbeg (talk) 16:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean there should be a plus sign between, say, ? —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. When you highlight text and click an edit tool, it formats it by copying the markup from the edit tool, and putting the highlighted text (or the cursor, if no text was highlighted) in place of the +. You can see how that works from my last edit to that message. -Steve Sanbeg (talk) 16:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it is all fixed now. Thanks for pointing that out. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 01:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit tools: Middle English letters

I see from an earlier comment that you are a sysop. (If not, do you know whom I should ask about the query below?)

To add Middle English texts properly one needs more letters than the 26 of modern English. Can we get those added to the edit tools for the sandbox?

The letters required are:

• Ȝ, ȝ (yogh)
• Þ, þ (thorn)
• Ð, ð (eth)
• Ƿ, ƿ (wynn)
• Æ, æ (æsh)

Of those; æ, ð, þ can be found hidden in the "Ligatures and symbols" drop-down if not the main screen. Unavailable are ȝ and ƿ. They are all native English letters. ȝ and þ are amongst the most common letters in Middle English.

Could these all be added?

Howard Alexander (talk) 16:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

All fixed now! It will be useful. Howard Alexander (talk) 22:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like I forgot to disambiguate

With all moves and the disambiguation pages that I created after working through A Short Biographical Dictionary of English Literature. It looks like I forgot to create the disambiguation page for (The) History of Rome. Fixed now. -- billinghurst (talk) 14:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

No worries; thanks for doing that. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 01:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Curtis's

If you are interested, I can set up a djvu file for vol. 1 & 2 of Curtis's. I have started this here for v.58, an example is Curtis's Botanical Magazine/Volume 58/3118, but it is all experimental. Your comments would be welcome. Cygnis insignis (talk) 14:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Oops, it looks like we're working on the same thing at the same time: --> Index:The Botanical Magazine, Volume 1.djvu <--

I have a djvu of volume 2 ready for upload too. Hesperian 06:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, thanks, please do go ahead with that and I'd love to help. I also plan to start working on volume 1 soon. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

There is now:

• Index:The Botanical Magazine, Volume 1.djvu
• Index:The Botanical Magazine, Volume 2 (1788).djvu
• Index:The Botanical Magazine, Volume 3 (1790).djvu
• Index:The Botanical Magazine, Volume 4 (1791).djvu

Hopefully I'll have the gumption to do all 14 of the "The"s. Hesperian 04:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Categorizing subpages

Hello Anonymous Dissident. Typically only the main page of a work should be categorized, to make categories more useful. All subpages are automatically placed by {{header}} into Category:Subpages. —Pathoschild 06:53:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

...unless the chapter should be in a category that does not apply to the work as a whole. For example Flora Australiensis/Volume V/CIV. Proteaceae should certainly be in Category:Proteaceae, but it ought not be in Category:Natural history of Australia, because the entire work should be put in there all at once. Hesperian 10:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think that makes sense, really. I'll change it momentarily. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 20:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey Pathoschild, thank you for informing me about the correct practice when it comes to subpage categorisation. I've proceeded to remove the categories from the Illiad and Odyssey books. Best —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thanks for removing them. —Pathoschild 22:21:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Reverted change to {{admin confirmation}}

Hello again. I reverted one of your edits to {{admin confirmation}}, because it broke current uses of the template (which use {{{2}}}). I think named parameters are unnecessary, because the template is only used on one page, is meant to be copied from the archives, and its values are self-explanatory. (Feel free to respond here if you disagree, your talk page is on my watchlist.) —Pathoschild 21:06:11, 06 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Sorry about that; I completely forgot to repair the existing usages. The reason I made the change was because there was a problem with the documentation. The default parameter for {{{2}}} made reference to an "{{{activity}}}" parameter that did not exist. I therefore thought that it would be a good idea to correct this. I figured that either the documentation or the coding had to change, and a change in your documentation would have made things confusing. But, it's up to you. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

To expound: the default for {{{2}}} currently says

<invalid value for {{{2}}}, see documentation.>

However, what *is* valid for 2 was not explicated, and I see potential for botching in the order of the parameters. However, I suppose the current scheme where we have "<invalid value for {{{2}}}, see documentation.>" is fine and a quick review of the documentation (which I have taken the liberty of updating to explain that {{{2}}} has only 2 defined cases) should make things clear to someone erring with the template; "<invalid value for {{{activity}}}, see documentation.>" was what was problematic, because {{{activity}}} was undefined. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

You have new messages

Hello, Anonymous Dissident. You have new messages at Billinghurst's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

and again