User talk:Smee/Archive 1
Welcome edit
- Thank you so much for the welcome! Smee 18:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC).
- Sorry that you slipped through the cracks for so long! Let me know if you ever need anything. --Spangineerwp (háblame) 01:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Will do, and thanks again! Smee 02:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC).
- Sorry that you slipped through the cracks for so long! Let me know if you ever need anything. --Spangineerwp (háblame) 01:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
As you'll notice on the rest of our SCOTUS pages we are leaving the author field blank for the syllabus page and for the opinion that we're putting on a single page (like Schwarz v. National Security Agency. Also orphaned pages are of little use. Make sure that when you post a Supreme Court opinion that You include it on the SCOTUS pages index. This kind of consistency makes for easier reading and research. --Metal.lunchbox 21:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oh. Okay then, thanks for pointing this out. I will take a look at that index page. Smee 00:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC).
Comments edit
Thank you for your kind note. I am not offended, but simply wish for you to better understand my thinking and expectations.--BirgitteSB 18:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Phew! Of course. I am glad you cleared it up for me in such a kind way. Thank you! Smee 19:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC).
I was looking through Recent Changes and saw your remarks about transcribing images from Commons. You might consider using the Proofread Page extension and the Page: namespace described in the Help page I linked to. This will make it very easy for other editors to proofread your contributions and also allow patrollers to verify any future edits. I do not have much experience with this extention myself, User:GrafZahl uses it and User:ThomasV wrote it.--BirgitteSB 13:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for noticing and suggesting this! I will have to check it out... Smee 11:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC).
- Hrm, this looks interesting, but it might be easier at times to simply embed the relevant images into the transcribed text. I will work with this soon, thanks again! Smee 14:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC).
- I have been playing with it a bit now. You have to go into edit mode to really see how it is useful. Without the scroll bar it is harder to understand.--BirgitteSB 13:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, if you think it's useful... Perhaps I'll try it out on one article and go from there... Smee 15:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC).
- What I have been doing is dumping in OCR text and the fixing the errors while editing in the Page: Namspace. If you are transcribing by hand it may not be as useful for that. However I think it would be useful for proofreading the transcription once it is done. But it is not perfect. The top and bottom of the page are not convient. On the other hand it makes it possible to give a one step link to proofreaders instead of asking them to find the right file and have the right program to open it. Not to mention find the the right page(s) in the file for what is on the Wikisource page. Here is what I have been working on [1]--BirgitteSB 17:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- It looks really, really cool. But I thought OCR only works for PDFs, not image files? Smee 18:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC).
- Nope. Only .pdf and .djvu allow the a layer of OCR text to be stored with the image IIRC, but any image I am aware of can be run through an OCR program. Obviously quality of image and software will affect the accuracy of the resulting text.--BirgitteSB 19:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- It looks really, really cool. But I thought OCR only works for PDFs, not image files? Smee 18:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC).
- What I have been doing is dumping in OCR text and the fixing the errors while editing in the Page: Namspace. If you are transcribing by hand it may not be as useful for that. However I think it would be useful for proofreading the transcription once it is done. But it is not perfect. The top and bottom of the page are not convient. On the other hand it makes it possible to give a one step link to proofreaders instead of asking them to find the right file and have the right program to open it. Not to mention find the the right page(s) in the file for what is on the Wikisource page. Here is what I have been working on [1]--BirgitteSB 17:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, if you think it's useful... Perhaps I'll try it out on one article and go from there... Smee 15:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC).
- I have been playing with it a bit now. You have to go into edit mode to really see how it is useful. Without the scroll bar it is harder to understand.--BirgitteSB 13:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hrm, this looks interesting, but it might be easier at times to simply embed the relevant images into the transcribed text. I will work with this soon, thanks again! Smee 14:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC).
Hello, You might be interested to see this: Index:Romeo and Juliet (The Illustrated Shakespeare, 1847).djvu. Regards, Yann 19:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Wow. This is all really neat and exciting, and has some interesting implications for my further work on this project. Thank you all. Smee 20:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC).
Replied edit
User talk:Anynobody Anynobody 06:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Reply edit
Someone has to do it. It does not take that long after you get going. Wabbit98 10:55am PST 10 June 2007
- Very true, and again, thanks for all of your help! We appreciate it. Smee 04:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC).
Most unbecoming edit
For the record, I find your addressing of my concerns and the manner in which you do that to be most unbecoming. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the feeling is mutual. Clearly these are not "speedy" delete candidates, but candidates instead for discussion. And your posting to the Noticeboard is an inappropriate use of the noticeboard, instead of starting a discussion about the deletion process. Smee 03:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC).
- Not really. I asked a question in the noticeboard that is indeed the place to place these questions. You, instead of letting admins respond to my question, or address the concerns I raised, you chose to assume bad faith, poison the well, and accuse me of censorship, that is indeed quite unbecoming. Thankfully anyone can see through these type behaviors, so the only one being embarrassed is you. You have done that before already and you keep doing the same, despite abundant feedback given to you by third-parties.. As I know that you always want to have the last word, go ahead, but do not expect I will respond. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Jossi, no matter how you spin it, it is censorship. The very fact that you are uploading other documents that do not fit the criterion that you have outlined, and involve other "private individuals" points to this. Smee 04:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC).
- Not really. I asked a question in the noticeboard that is indeed the place to place these questions. You, instead of letting admins respond to my question, or address the concerns I raised, you chose to assume bad faith, poison the well, and accuse me of censorship, that is indeed quite unbecoming. Thankfully anyone can see through these type behaviors, so the only one being embarrassed is you. You have done that before already and you keep doing the same, despite abundant feedback given to you by third-parties.. As I know that you always want to have the last word, go ahead, but do not expect I will respond. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Court Documents or not? edit
Hello,
Personally I don't really care about these documents. I am just stating that, based on the current inclusion policy, there is no reason to delete them. So with the current policy, unless the Wikimedia Foundation gives instructions to delete them, they will stay on Wikisource. I don't think there is a need for a debate about that. That's also true for Jossi. Regards, Yann 21:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments. Smee 00:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC).
I think you probaly see that your reaction at the noticeboard was not very helpful to either Wikisource or your own case. I would really like to caution you about the term "censorship". I have become quite aware of the issues around that term when working on settling a dispute on illustrations at w:Temple garment. Censorship means that there is an organization or conspiracy in power. Censorship can never be acted out by and individual or a group that is not in control. Because of these implications it is always a bad idea to use that term on wiki. A LDS chrch member may wish to censor the image of a temple garment, but he cannot take part in censorship unless he is in conspriracy with administrators of the wiki. It strange how adding "-ship" to that word will worsen a disscussion. So my advice is to aviod the term "censorship" altogether, even if for no other reason than it will actually make your arguments less convincing to others. Of course there are other reasons, most importantly assume good faith. Assuming good faith always makes disputes more productive and saves you all the energy you would waste trying to do the immpossible and guess the motivations of other people. Assume they are stubborn, silly, uniformed, having a bad day, unhappy with life in general, or anything elso so long as you assume good faith.--BirgitteSB 01:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for the good advice, however difficult it is at times to assume good faith, particularly in the examples you mention above of a conflict of interest with that LDS issue you brought up, I don't know if it was a real issue or not per se. Regardless of whether the effort to remove freely accessible material from the internet is brought down insitutionally via OTRS, or via a complaint from a member of a certain group, it certainly feels like suppression of information - especially in the case of already Public Domain documents. Thank you for your time. Smee 02:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC).
- I don't know that there is any reason to describe someone's behavior in such detail that there is a need for an alternate term. Just gives diffs of what they write and describe why you disagree with them. There is no need to comment on them personally. I will see if I can find which mailing list he is referring to; there are several. --BirgitteSB 12:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- I did not even know there were several... Thank you for your advice. Smee 16:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC).
- The mailing list post is really more about if en.WP should link to document at en.WS which contain information en.WP would not host per w:WP:BLP. It is not really an issue that merits discussion at en.WS. The list is here--BirgitteSB 17:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- I did not even know there were several... Thank you for your advice. Smee 16:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC).
- I don't know that there is any reason to describe someone's behavior in such detail that there is a need for an alternate term. Just gives diffs of what they write and describe why you disagree with them. There is no need to comment on them personally. I will see if I can find which mailing list he is referring to; there are several. --BirgitteSB 12:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. Smee 17:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC).
I have nominated this for deletion. Only trancriptions of actual text are included in the Main namespace here. This appears to be a natural Category to my eyes, and I proposed converting it to one.--BirgitteSB 11:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- I added some other similar pages which do not meet the inclusion policy to the nomination.--BirgitteSB 19:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- I was unaware that we are not allowed to have index pages for public domain documents, but I'll take your word on this. Thank you. Smee 01:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC).
- I will redirect some of these to the categories of the same name. Smee 01:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC).
- Everything in main namespace needs to fit the policy at WS:WWI. There are some index pages in the Wikisource namespace (Portal:Supreme Court of the United States), but nothing really on such narrow topics. We really discourage index pages on narrow subjects, although you could probably find some that need to cleaned out. Index pages work better for comprehensive chronological collections (the laws of England, International treaties, UN resolutions, etc.), purely topical relationships should be categories.--BirgitteSB 03:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Again, I do see your point, and thank you for the clarification. But I see no issues with redirecting to a category, particularly if users may be coming to WikiSource looking for information on a subject that already is in a category, but may not think to look for the category directly, and thus may not find the information they are looking for, at all... Smee 04:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC).
- Everything in main namespace needs to fit the policy at WS:WWI. There are some index pages in the Wikisource namespace (Portal:Supreme Court of the United States), but nothing really on such narrow topics. We really discourage index pages on narrow subjects, although you could probably find some that need to cleaned out. Index pages work better for comprehensive chronological collections (the laws of England, International treaties, UN resolutions, etc.), purely topical relationships should be categories.--BirgitteSB 03:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- I will redirect some of these to the categories of the same name. Smee 01:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC).
- I was unaware that we are not allowed to have index pages for public domain documents, but I'll take your word on this. Thank you. Smee 01:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC).
The Cult Phenomenon in the United States edit
Excuse me, but I seem to have found a typo in this page. Is it in the original and if it is what is the Wikisource policy for keeping them from being "fixed"? I apologize, but I am very new to the community.