User talk:DeirdreAnne/2012

Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help#interlang_links

Your area of expertise, my brain has forgotten. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Statutes At Large

Had you opened discussions on this yet ? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

I hereby present you with the Illuminati Barnstar, fr srvcs t th mst ncint nd scrt brthrhd, cndctd slntly nd t f th sght f mr cmmn ppl! I was going to leave it at enWP, but it didn't want to violate your wishes, so I thought you could have it here! :-D Inductiveload—talk/contribs 21:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Statutes At Large

i)

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Ruffhead_-_The_Statutes_at_Large,_1763.djvu/12 http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Ruffhead_-_The_Statutes_at_Large,_1763.djvu/13

There is a footnote split over a page break.

Done I've done this split reference. Use <ref name=blah> </ref> tags on the first page and <ref follow=blah> </ref> tags on the second page. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

ii) How to do the side by side stuff -

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Ruffhead_-_The_Statutes_at_Large,_1763.djvu/45 (one approach)

http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Page:Ruffhead_-_The_Statutes_at_Large,_1763.djvu/6 Is another..

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/User:Sfan00_IMG/Sandbox is an experimental presentation of stuff transcluded (but which shows the 'praragraph continuation' issues I mentioned previously.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Additonal - http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Ruffhead_-_The_Statutes_at_Large,_1763.djvu/17 one of the footnotes itself

has a footnote. How do you code that sort of thing? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Being creepy

I wanted to say "escasez" (from memory... HS Spanish class...), but I think "tal vez" is correct (with Google Translate help)... perhaps...? Your User page is on My watchlist (Re: "Ich denke nun ich bin besser als -1, vielleicht ;-)"), and I'm "creepy" that way. Hope 'alles' is well. Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

And feel free to tweak Masefield & GHEJr. pages however you'd like, whenever you'd like, so that they are no longer seen as problematic. They have remained in the recesses of my mind (not that that's your problem )! P.S. This is not a jab or a jest, by the way. Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

LOL, actually thanks for watching my user page - not creepy at all, I watch every page I touch on here - used to do that on en.wp but that eventually became pointless - but on here watching all pages is important - If someone posts a question here ever, please feel free to answer them.

I'll try to take a look at those again. I just realized Masefield is the same as Index:John Masefield.djvu - not an author I've paid much attention to but he looks interesting. Moving back to the States soon so not around so much but other than that alles ist gut. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Danke und gut (I don't know German even though my Mom is quite proficient at speaking German and could converse with my Oma who was born in Germany... I can sing a song about my father being a wandering man, and also about a little ducky swimming here and there, though! <smile>). Mrs. Coates must have thought Masefield was interesting... at least... to have written a poem about him, his thoughts & work on Gallipoli & his Sonnets, etc. I have come to find that whatever she thought to be interesting or inspiring, I probably would too. 'Sam-o Sam-o' with my Talk page, etc. Later, Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

You have new messages

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

Explain

Sorry for coming off dickish - not my intent. The problem with ...Yogi is the long drawn out history & back-n-forth elsewhere over the author and his works. Its just if we don't separate each issue, which in my view are being lumped together in hopes of en.WS reaching a particular conclusion by "one faction" over the other(s), we'll never resolve any of these points entirely and to our complete satisfaction. Sorry again. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, no problem, I understand and sorry I snapped back about it.

I also understand that I don't know the history. My inclination was to keep it suppressed (blanked, copyvio tagged, whatever) for a bit longer and hope that the editor who promised scans actually can produce. I really have no problem with you summarily deleting the chapter as a fragment, though, we don't need to go through a bunch of process for that. I can still prod the editor for scans. I really don't care one way or the other about the non-copyright issues - I preferred keeping it open and tagged though as it was the least decisive and therefore wouldn't be seen as taking sides. You have a point though that by discussing the copyright (which I did think was a real question as it seemed to be in some dispute) we are dragging out a claim that really is of little importance and has little merit.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 00:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Right, these dozen or so folks have had their fill of edit wars, warnings and blocks on Wikipedia, so the remnants have moved here. First it was about the lack of court documents, then it was about adding the court documents, then it was about deleting the court documents, then it became about showing copyright renewals, then it became about the court rulings in light of the copyright renewals and so on until the whole point over the current discussion of deleting Chapter 49 became the latest thing so as to make it seem like it was done as a copyright violation; taking along with it the entire 1951 edition in the process by the unknowing or witless.

I'm going to move it to Proposed Deletions and close it there. On top of satisfying our guidelines properly, that will accomplish one or two things: either the other side finally puts up scans of the all important, just before Yogi's death 1951 edition with the all-to-spiritually relevant Chapter 49 included in it or this side will move to contest the copyright status of the 1946 edition somehow which we currently host based on little more than good-faith and Project Guttenberg's word. Either way - the debate will most likely pick up over one point or the other if and when the above happens. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Botwiki

Have you abandoned Botwiki? I was excited to that pywikipediabot had a bit of a supporting community. :( --Inops (talk) 00:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• Not entirely, just ran out of time to put towards it. Snowolf and I were trying to revamp it but it was basically just us.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 18:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)