User talk:Adam sk~enwikisource

-- billinghurst (talk) 23:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Overlinking (in my not so humble opinion)
Hi Adam sk, looking at the edits in The History Of England From the Accession of James II/Chapter I, to me it looks overlinked. Generally here at Wikisource we try to do light wikilinking, especially with regard offsite like w: and wikt:. Generally we would encourage linking locally to Authors namespace, and to other works (whether they are hosted now or appear as redlinks), to the wider WMF some would say link if you can demonstrate that it adds value, is NPOV and is evidence-based. A little guidance at Style guide. — billinghurst  sDrewth  05:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I totally disagree with that. If one were to err, why would one possibly err on the side of underlinking?  My links are all NPOV and evidence-based, and I think that whether or not something "adds value" is highly subjective.  And I think that the policy is just hopelessly ambiguous when it says "Commonly used words or well known references should not be linked."  Commonly used by who?  Well known by who?  I'm shocked by how often in my day-to-day life, I come across people who are just totally oblivious to things that I consider totally common knowledge.  Let alone people who are young, or for whom English is a second language, or whatever.  Linking makes a work more accessible to people who might not have the necessary background to understand a work, especially one like this where Lord Macaulay makes all sorts of oblique references.


 * And then, secondly, I think that one of the wonderful things about wikis is that, even for people who get the reference, if you want to learn more about a topic. I read Wikipedia like that all the time, and I see no reason people wouldn't want to read Wikisource in the same way.  Heck, part of the reason that I'm enjoying wikifying Macaulay's History of England is that I'm learning a lot of interesting stuff as I do so.  I knew next to nothing about the Middle Ages when I started, and now I do; my understanding of English geography is pretty spotty, but I'm learning as I go.  Etc.  And I think that for a lot of people who would read this work, they'd feel the same way and like the same opportunity.


 * So, I don't see what possible objection you have to "overlinking". Especially when if people don't want to look at the links, they can always just click on "download as PDF" or "Printable version" to see the text in a clean version.


 * So, anyhow, I see you're an admin, so I'm sure I'd never win a fight with you, but I think you're totally off base on this one. And I'm going to continue linking unless there's some good reason I shouldn't.  Adam sk (talk) 03:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * See ongoing discussion at User talk:Billinghurst. —Spangineerwp (háblame) 04:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Cheers for uploading Macaulay's History, and for getting his notes into place, I mentioned a couple of things on the talk page. I read the discussion elsewhere, you raised some pertinent issues there and here, but I think the solution is to create an alternate version and do as you please. The building of the links to wikipedia can be done as you go through the chapters, by creating similar pages with the same structure as the clean text. This could be the beginning of a fully annotated text, which would be most useful when reviewed and complete. I'll show you what I mean by creating The History Of England From the Accession of James II (annotated)/Chapter I, let me know if you want it moved or deleted. Cygnis insignis (talk) 11:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Scans and copyright tags
Gday,

With the Harvard Review articles, if you have access to the scans, then it would be great if we could have them uploaded to Commons. That will allow someone to validate the text that you contributed against the image of the text. Also, when applying a copyright tag, we can only use PD-old if someone died more than 100 years ago. For Oliver Wendell Jr, he died in 1923, then we would apply the Pd/1923 variant, and it would be applied as to give — billinghurst  sDrewth  07:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Adam sk. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Adam sk~enwikisource that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 06:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)