User talk:Jmcneill2

Hello,, welcome to Wikisource! Thanks for your interest in the project; we hope you'll enjoy the community and your work here. If you need help, see our help pages (especially Adding texts and Wikisource's style guide). You can discuss or ask questions from the community in general at the Scriptorium. The Community Portal lists tasks you can help with if you wish. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page. --Benn Newman 00:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

ISG
The reason http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Iraq_Study_Group_Report/II didn't have the same "table of contents" is that it's only automatically generated if there's more than four chapters (denoted by the ==Chapter name== set-up. Because there were only three, none was auto-generated.  I threw in a  at the top, which will manually create one now. Imbedded is not 'wrong' per se, it's just an odd spelling choice to use, since the United States almost exclusively uses Embedded instead.  shrugs. By adding a = to either side of new headers, we can make the more "detailed" contents pages as well.  I'll go update http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Iraq_Study_Group_Report/II now, and leave you to do http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Iraq_Study_Group_Report/I yourself ;) Sherurcij (talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει) 13:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Readded it to the page, not sure why it initially disappeared, or got tagged alone. Welcome to Wikisource, where there's an ongoing battle about what is or isn't "free" to use. Sherurcij (talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει) 12:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note
Yeah, personally I find the ACLU opinion to be more "interesting" to me than the ISG Report - so I'll return to trying to bring it up to FT status, thanks for the reminder. Personally, I was a real fan of the coloured blockquotes, simply for ease of reading without sacrificing text accuracy, but I recognise some people want to make the document "look" just like it did - but in my mind, this is like how we change texts that are printed in ALL CAPS, to proper capitalization (although we leave intact typos and such, for authenticity). There always has to be a first, and if we changed other legal opinions to a similar format in the future, I feel that would actually be a positive step...but I'm not married to the idea, I can live with consensus being against me. (On that note, to try and counter the "Let's delete everything!" lobby group, I wouldn't mind your honest opinions, on either [] or Proposed_deletions, even if you agree with my opponents, it would be nice to see somebody other than the three of them forming a "cabal" of deletionism...same people who tried to delete the ISG, Newmanbe and Psychim). Going to leave a couple comments on the ACLU talk page :) Sherurcij (talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει) 13:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the idea
I have no problem using changing the tag at Wikipedia to direct them to the case in Wikisource. I just started using wikisource-inline; as there is no one way that we as a group have decided on. I will look into that, but I am busy with school as that is eating up most of my time right now. -- Wabbit98 11:29am 6th March 2007 (PST)