User talk:Thekohser

Welcome to Wikisource

Hello, Thekohser, and welcome to Wikisource! Thank you for joining the project. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• Help pages, especially for proofreading
• Help:Beginner's guide to Wikisource
• Style guide
• Inclusion policy
• Wikisource:For Wikipedians

You may be interested in participating in

• Proofread of the Month
• Monthly Challenge
• Requested texts

Add the code {{active projects}}, {{PotM}} or {{Collaboration/MC}} to your page for current Wikisource projects.

You can put a brief description of your interests on your user page and contributions to another Wikimedia project, such as Wikipedia and Commons.

Have questions? Then please ask them at either

• Wikisource:Scriptorium; or
• Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help

I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikisource, the library that is free for everyone to use! In discussions, please "sign" your comments using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username if you're logged in (or IP address if you are not) and the date. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question here (click edit) and place {{helpme}} before your question.

Again, welcome! -- billinghurst (talk) 22:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Rename

Sorry for the delay, but the rename is now taken care of. You will have to merge this account into SUL now.--BirgitteSB 18:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Some pages worth perusing

• Wikisource:Style guide
• H:SIDE
• Help:DjVu files

The gadget that preloads {{header}} and {{author}} is very useful. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, there's an enormous amount to learn here. This is very stimulating for me personally. I just don't want to invest TOO much effort, if I'm just going to get blocked in a few days for "being who I am". -- Thekohser (talk) 14:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

At enWS we do not block good faith editors who are contributing to build our library. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Whether the double meaning was intended of not, this conversation just gave me a good laugh. I will say the following with all sincerity. Please don't make a mess in my favorite sandbox. The people here really want to believe that our community is strong enough to function well while including all kinds of dissent. I want to believe that. I hope you have come here with goal of proving us right. I worry that you have come here to kick sand in the faces of people who care much less about Wikisource than they care about you. I think those people have screwed up priorities. But, still, please don't make a mess in my favorite sandbox.--BirgitteSB 02:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Birgitte, you let me know the moment you feel I have crossed even the faintest of lines, or made the slightest mess in your favorite sandbox. Honestly, I'm not even sure how one could champion an ulterior agenda here, when the task is simply dutiful duplication of existing content, without embellishment. If there is any lesson to be learned from my recent block here, it is (as you've suggested) that some other people have some rather questionable priorities. -- Thekohser (talk) 14:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the reassurance. I trust you.--BirgitteSB 13:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Time for introduction?

WS:COTW is my pet project here, though it's fallen by the wayside recently as my life becomes busier, but definitely feel free to pick your favourite author and make him next week's collaboration. And if any non-WS user comes here to pick on a WS user, you're pretty much guaranteed at least some back-up ;) Though I have reason to pick this fight, I've been banned on WP numerous times defending what I would consider to be the integrity of works and taking some err...creative ways to point out loopholes in the system. And here I'm an administrator, and on Wikinews I'm an accredited reporter...so I'm well aware that people have different goals in mind on different WMF projects...and I definitely don't believe actions on one project should spill into another project. Glad to have you here. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Charlotte Mason.} 19:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikinews

Just letting you know we have a thread on you on Wikinews. Please make a comment to your Wikinews talk page if you wish to be unblocked. --Mikemoral♪♫ 03:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, just a heads-up, you've been unblocked on en.wikinews. Cheers, Tempodivalse (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

page numbers

I replied here, letting you know in case you forgot to check "Add pages I edit to my watchlist" in your preferences. Cygnis insignis (talk) 14:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Response to email

Gday. Global checkuser indicated that the account was being used for sockpuppet abuse. I would think that your first port of call would be to Drini or someone at Meta asking for that to be reviewed, not knowing the data, nor the damage, I hesitate to override that without further knowledge. I can see that it is a time-limited block. Email obviously works, so I presume that you can still email Drini. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

request on comment

I don't see this comment as related to improvement of the site. Would you consider removing it, and using some other means to contact the user? Cygnis insignis (talk) 19:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I was just trying to be open and transparent, but if you think it unwise to be so open and transparent, I will gladly remove the comment. -- Thekohser (talk) 20:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The first part is reasonable, but a condition is placed that if you remove it, then I think it "unwise to be so open and transparent"?! If you wish to have a discussion about that, please phrase it that way. Please try to keep it simple: I don't know what you were thinking, I would prefer you did what you thought was productive without weaving a protest into the request. The comment echoes some unwelcome noise, as far as I know it is generally hoped that you will remain welcome. Cygnis insignis (talk) 22:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Appreciate the poetic charm of the phrase "weaving a protest into the request". Nicely rendered. -- Thekohser (talk) 18:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

With regard to your email

Greg. Sending email to people from a blind address when it shows your underlying email address is not a smart idea, and especially when it relates to you and your banning from mailing lists. Your whole approach is wrong and all you do is build enmity towards you. Some of us try to be here for relief from politics, and disputes. At this time all I see is you entrenched in a war with the world over some principal that seems well forgotten, and suggest that you find something enjoyable to do and to do it, whether that be here or elsewhere. Don't let a website, or a series of them, and its/their machinations chew you up, it simply isn't worth it, whether it is a principle or not. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Duly noted, billinghurst, but to be frank, I had no delusion that I was attempting to hide my "underlying email address". I was more making a point that "banning" someone from a mailing list that allows instant access for any new e-mail account (I had posted a couple of times already to the list as "Houston Navarro") is rather a pointless exercise. All it does is silence the association of my ideas with my name. I'm surprised that I built any "enmity" toward me, as I meant the prank to be funny. Come now -- didn't you chuckle at the response-side images of a KKK lynching and goose-stepping East Germans? Besides, the e-mail (sent to about 250 addresses) garnered 46 responses. An 18% response rate on an unsolicited, non-incentivized e-mail poll is phenomenal. Trust me, that's my business. Rest assured, I'm not being "chewed up". This isn't a war. It's a hobby. I enjoy picking apart the unethical and inefficient practices of this particular non-profit foundation. -- Thekohser (talk) 15:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

No chuckle here. As I said, I am not here to play politics, this is meant to be my escape from that shite. I hope that is part of your consideration when you start trying to involve others. With regards to your other comments, oh well. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment on the Scriptorium

Greg, I was not impressed to see your 7th Dec. comment on the scriptorium. You have a history of anti-WMF aggravation, and if you continue to make this kind of comment, you can expect a(nother) ban. If you want to get on and edit things constructively, there are hundreds of thousands of pages needing work, and millions of other books to choose from. You are not short of useful things to do here, so I suggest you get on with that, or get out. As for you comment above "I enjoy picking apart the unethical and inefficient practices of this particular non-profit foundation.", you may enjoy it, but no-one else does, so enjoy it privately and keep it off Wikisource. We will not tolerate political manoeuvring here. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 16:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess the truth hurts you, Inductiveload. My comment was posted over three weeks ago, and not a soul objected to it, in situ. Then, long after the comment was made, you use the opportunity to speak on behalf of the entire community ("no-one else does") when it's fairly clear that the community, at best, had no opinion on my comment. You absolutely cannot deny that Wikia is often confused for Wikipedia and/or Wikimedia Foundation projects, and you absolutely cannot deny that Wikia has repeatedly brought itself into disrepute, which exposes the Wikimedia Foundation projects to harm.

You don't need to tell me about the amount of work that is available to do here... because I do it. Now, please don't interrupt my Talk page with baseless accusations again. -- Thekohser (talk) 14:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe that it is the corrosive attitude that permeates where you tread. At the time of your comment there was no opinion stated, though there were eyeballs rolled, shoulders shrugged, and such a wonderful sense of the other type of déja vu. If you believe that the commentary on your talk page isn't wanted or warranted, then maybe neither is your posturing on WS:S, and when someone addresses it to you directly, you bite. It is also interesting that you don't mind giving a bit of lip, however, you don't like receiving a bit in return, so that your comment is right, the truth does hurt. You have an expectation that we just need to put up with your ongoing negative rhetorical statements and the bullying attitude? Naha.

Inductiveload and I are always happy to assist people at WS, and as are many admins and other editors, though when push comes to shove … <shrug> With regard to you "doing it"? You do a little bit on things that interest you, and those 65 contributions are welcome, though it hardly is a significant contribution to improving the site and the offering. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll tell you what... I'll do an edit or two of penance for the WikiSource community that has been so offended by my factual remark, and then I will take a self-imposed editing "block" of 30 days, so that I can think about improving my corrosive attitude. During that time, you can also think about how you address people with 65 contributions as "hardly significant". How welcoming and thankful! -- Thekohser (talk) 18:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Quote from May 5, 2010

"P.S. I could see how Wikisource, if it is as it appears, to be a true and authentic effort to dutifully reproduce public domain works, without agenda or personality tainting the effort, could really be an addictive environment for someone like me. However, it being under the umbrella of a corrupt regime, I couldn't possibly bring myself to complete work on more than just perhaps the one work that I'm interested personally in completing. (In other words, even if I score a run in this inning, there's only a couple more innings left, and it will probably be my last game with this team.)" ResScholar (talk) 04:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Was there a particular point being made, placing this quote on my Talk page? -- Thekohser (talk) 13:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Repeating your words from the top of the page? Ah but they may relate to something indeed. ResScholar: understated as ever. Nice. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess I need it spelled out for me. I mean, we know where this quote comes from, and it was uttered in conjunction with a conversation about Jimbo banning my account from all Wikimedia projects. I'm having trouble getting the significance. What "page" are you talking about, billinghurst, when you say "your words from the top of the page"? -- Thekohser (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

ResScholar is presumably referring to this edit and this edit or I am just on drugs or need to be. Not to sweat it. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)