User talk:Longfellow

}}

If you can't think of any particular corners to improve on Wikisource, how about taking a look at Portal:Religious texts, Portal:Wars or Portal:Texts by Country for some ideas? Don't forget to list your contributions on those pages as well so others will find and read them in the future!

— billinghurst  sDrewth  13:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome
I've noted what I have to do for house style and added my source for Maud (The illustrated Victorian songbook). As time permits I shall add the other songs in that book.--Longfellow (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You are very welcome. Nice addition by the way. The float center is optional, and just works nicely for some works.  Like Wikipedia, we like to source our works.  Do also look at our ability to have scans with works at H:SIDE and our information on DjVu files.  Looking forward to see what you find.  — billinghurst  sDrewth  22:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the welcome. I wandered here while editing a wikipdeia article. I am unlikely to get much involved, however when I find a suitable person I am working on who is also in the Dictionary of National Biography I will see what i can do.Harrypotter (talk) 21:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Welcome.
Glad to see you on our team. The time I have spent here has been of benefit thanks to some timely steers from the 'corporate knowledge'. Hope you find your time here beneficial. Let me know if I can help (easy questions only:-). I am usually in the twenty's somewhere lost in details. JamAKiska (talk) 20:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Queen Anne
I saw you mentioned access to versions of the DNB. As it happens, what you have put up for Anne (1665-1714) (DNB00) enables me to explain the difficulties of using "raw" text. I also have access to text, but it's not really that simple.

Firstly there is the issue of format: DALRYMPLE'S must be changed to with small caps, for our manual of style. There are other such points. The other is more insidious, but I happen to have been working on exactly this article today, and can point to the difficulty. That text is not the first edition (whatever it may say). That shows up right at the end, where certain bits have been cut out. You can see this at Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 01.djvu/486, where the text has been proofread against images of the original. For reasons of space, I think, parts have been edited out:


 * "The personal tastes of Queen Anne went in a different direction. Her predilections were rather in favour of open-air amusements, more especially that of hunting."

had previously been


 * "The personal tastes of Queen Anne went in a different direction. There is no proof that she cared much for jewellery, notwithstanding the stir made by Marlborough about the jewels inherited by her from her sister, and withheld from her in Holland (Marlborough Despatches, i. 10-11, 35, &c.); nor for lace, in which she does not seem to have been extravagant. Her predilections were rather in favour of open-air amusements, more especially that of hunting."

I don't want to be discouraging, but while pre-prepared text is very useful, the way of adding it has to be more complex. There is something about this at WikiProject DNB/Raw materials. The objective for us being a validated copy of the first edition, we really have to place the text where it can be checked against the original. I have worked out a methodical way to do this and transclude efficiently, which I'd be happy to discuss with you in more detail. I'll replace the article with the version I had lined up now.Charles Matthews (talk) 21:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Coates poetry
Thanks for the page [redirect] maintenance. Just created Henry Wadsworth Longfellow poem page by Mrs. Coates in thanks... Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Clarify opinion on TextQuality?
Would you remind returning to the discussion at Scriptorium and clarifying your position on the removal of the text quality radio buttons? There is wide support for keeping TextQuality in its current state for use in works not using the page namespace, but a number of users would like to remove the radio buttons to simplify the interface and not confuse new users. Your opinion on that would be helpful. —Spangineerwp (háblame) 17:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

User talk:86.44.109.103
Thanks for the welcome, but I already have an account. I keep forgetting that I have to log in again after every thirty days! Eroica (talk) 20:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Your recent comment at an ip's talk indicated a problem, but not what that was. The four contribs were left unchanged, and appear well intentioned: the template invited users to try and fix the page. Cygnis insignis (talk) 21:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

DNB
Thanks for letting me know about the page, I will let you know if I can make use of it once i have had a good look Battlecatz (talk) 19:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi, thanks for the welcome. I am going to try to translate some key parts of Houbraken.Jane023 (talk) 15:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Longfellow. Thanks for the warm welcome and apologies for the delayed reply. I shall create an account soon and contribute as much as I can to Wikisource. Cheers -

Deletions
Thanks I appreciate the heads-up. Koavf (talk) 23:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Logic and meaning paper
Thanks for the information about the copyright template. I have now added the Creative Commons license.--Logicalgregory (talk) 15:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

new text
The link on the talk page is helpful, but it is not source of the transcript. I assume you typed it using the physical object, the book, can you note that as well: "Transcribed from …" or something? If someone wants to verify something, like the underscores_in_the_chorus, or improve it they will be obliged to ask the creator. The work is probably available as scan, though not that edition obviously; having that—or a copy of an authoritative web source—is the standard we work to. Do you see it another way? cygnis insignis 11:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Regular welcome
I would recommend the regular welcome, as is sort of trashy looking. Do you have a reason that you prefer it? Arlen22 (talk) 17:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Milton: a poem in two books
Thanks for fixing the double redirect (I forgot to check), but there is now two versions and I don't think it worth resolving that. I made them soft redirects, unless someone has a better idea. cygnis insignis 16:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Admin
Thanks, good answer :) Jeepday (talk) 02:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You have not edited in several days, recent revelations at Administrators may in part be responsible for the lack of activity. I would hope that you have not gone off and created yet another identity.  I can appreciate that you communicated with Birgitte SB Zhaladshar by email prior to making the leap of faith that you did, clearly the right thing to do. I can appreciate your bypassing of some questions, but at some point you should have come out of the closet prior to the posting Administrators.  If you really want to be a part of Wikisource, I would encourage you maintain the User:Longfellow identity, be open, honest and continue to edit as you have been. In a few months you can run for admin again.  You are no doubt thinking about all the different choices you can make in the near futer, I think the right one is to come back and edit.  There are a truly a great bunch of editors here at Wikisource, if you really want to show that you are worthy of the trust of the community this is a great place to do so. I will nominate you for admin myself, when the time comes. JeepdaySock (talk) 16:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

— billinghurst  sDrewth  13:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Bid for administration
 * Administrators/Archives/Longfellow

eMail
FYI for back ground - I have received several emails from this user, since they stopped editing, keep in mind that Longfellow is not blocked and completely able to edit or comment openly on WS. I checked at Administrators'_noticeboard and other users have received email as well. My only communications to or about Longfellow has been completely on WS. The first email, requested my confidence and a possible return to WS was outlined. I share this as I believe that others have had similar emails, and it is not confidence that is being requested but conspiracy that is actually being requested. The request for conspiracy was "If I do return to WS, I would want it to be as Poetlister. Would you be prepared, when things have calmed down in a couple of months, to unblock that account and make it an Autopatroller?"  Which would involve me breaking a community decision Scriptorium/Archives/2008-09 to block. The second email included the question "Did you know Billinghurst blocked me on WS for 24 hours just for e-mailing you? It's a pretty staggering thing not to allow a user in good stead, as I still am on WS, to send an e-mail in reply to a talk page message. ", The Longfellow account was blocked for 24 hours with the message "‎(Sending email, while not expressly prohibited; it would be against the community's expressed intent)". There action was publicized here.

I have also received a third email (after indicating publicly that I was not likely to communicate in private, particularly on this subject) - and a request to explain this edit

It goes on to say -

Please explain. What on earth makes you think that I am not primarily interested in improving and maintaining the library? Is it because I don't want to be nominated for RfA? That's just a recognition of the fact that I'm sure it would be another fiasco. If you could guarantee me enough support votes, I'd still be willing to do it. I'd have thought that the fact that I'm willing to return and contribute without any prospect of RfA proves that I'm not in it for the glory.

I did say "please keep this to yourself at the moment. (I believe and hope that unlike some people, you'll respect my confidence.)"

If you really think that I cannot be an asset to WS, please block me and that will be an end of it; I shall never return in any shape or form. I have no wish to contribute to a site where only one current editor seems to value my contributions. Fortunately, English is not my only language and there are other WMF sites where the functionaries take a different view.

If you have anything further to say to me, I'd much sooner you sent me an e-mail, using a throwaway account if you don't want me to know your usual address, than that you broadcast it on WS. Maybe you are "not much of a behind the scenes kind of guy", but sometimes a little discretion is necessary.

-- This e-mail was sent by Longfellow to JeepdaySock by the "E-mail user" function at Wikiquote.

My Responses published publicly
 * 1) I beleive you are not primarily interested in improving and maintaining the library, due to the fact that your in your own hand you are showing attention to events on WS, but as soon as your RfA fell apart you stopped contributing.
 * 2) "Is it because I don't want to be nominated for RfA?", Clearly you do want to be nominated " If you could guarantee me enough support votes, I'd still be willing to do it. "
 * 3) "I'd have thought that the fact that I'm willing to return and contribute without any prospect of RfA proves that I'm not in it for the glory.", they why are you not contributing?
 * 4) "If you really think that I cannot be an asset to WS, please block me" an intriguing thought, but currently I am leaning towards suggesting a Ban.
 * 5) "If you have anything further to say to me, I'd much sooner you sent me an e-mail,", I would sooner communicate publicly as I have been.

Given that you are aware of Administrators'_noticeboard and the resulting distraction to the project that confidential conversations along these lines have had, I can not imagine how you can think that doing so again is be a good idea.

Sometimes a little public disclosure is a better thing. Jeepday (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Longfellow account blocked
Re:"Fortunately, English is not my only language and there are other WMF sites where the functionaries take a different view." There is absolutely no way I am willing to allow you to build different identities on different WMF sites. Part of what led us to not ban you in 2008 was that you came clean with all your accounts. After your further deceptions here, you should imagine we would require more assurances of you than we did 2008, not less. If you will be permitted to edit it will be with a single unified account. What exactly are the names of all accounts you have created since the 2008 list you provided?

I have been certain that you had at least one active account on SUL. Since you are now advertising this to en.WS admins, I am blocking the Longfellow account. Use a single account to edit/contact people. We are done with the games.--Birgitte SB  05:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Account is not talk page block
From:	"Longfellow" To: zhaladshar Subject:	Appeal against block Date sent:	Mon, 10 Jan 2011 09:32:15 +0000 Copies to:	Billinghurst, John Vandenberg, Birgitte SB

Zhaladshar, I wish to appeal against the block on User:Longfellow. Firstly, it was inappropriate for Birgitte to impose the block as she has made statements that show her bias regarding my case. She said that she would have refused to make me an admin even if my RfA had been successful, and that she would like a temporary block on me while a community ban was being considered. Thus the issue of whether to block me should have been made by an uninvolved admin. Secondly, the claimed reason for the block is inappropriate. I did not say that I have accounts yet on any other WMF site. Even if I did, I have no unblocked accounts on EN:WS. There is no requirement that I have to use the same name on every site, still less that all my accounts be unified as a SUL. Thus it seems to me that this is a pretext for what Birgitte has indicated that she wanted to do, rather than a legitimate reason. Thirdly, I wish to be unblocked so that I can respond to Jeepday's comments about me on WS:AN. I am unclear whether I can edit my talk page, but obviously that would be an unsatisfactory place to respond, given that few people would ever see it. Can you please review. 

With regard to your recent email. Others will address the specifics, though to confirm that your talk page is not blocked for your edits. Please add your information and requests here. Generally it would seem that the components that you put into your email would be more appropriate on this page. — billinghurst  sDrewth  10:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * First of all, you misrepresent my previous remarks at adminship. I was recusing as I had just been convincing some to oppose and didn't feel it comfortable closing it after doing so. Not wanting to promote you to admin, doesn't mean I am biased about your editing. And I am not biased merely because have formed an opinion on what is acceptable.
 * It is not acceptable for you to use different names on different sites. And drop the whole "I never said I was but I could to do so if I wanted to do so". Say what you mean and mean what you say.  Will you update the list of WM accounts you have created that was provided in 2008?  In 2008 you provided a list including several accounts that never showed up on en.WS because you were asked for a complete list.  Why do you no longer believe "account" to mean "any WM account" and argue that it means "account active at en.WS" when you showed no such differentiation in 2008?--Birgitte SB  13:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * One thing I failed to clarify. I was not looking for any pretext to block this account.  I did already have a notion that this person was operating active account(s) elsewhere.  There were statements made in emails sent in early December that when put together with my fuller understanding of their pattern of behavior made this idea clear to me even before more recent information.  However, I did not feel able to raise this point prior to the opening given with their bragging about how welcome they are elsewhere.  If they wish to respond at WS:AN or WS:S, they need to use their active account.  Not some sock that hasn't made an edit anywhere in weeks.  It unacceptable for them to keep unblocked socks around for game-playing.  If they really dispute my basis for the block, let them state clearly that they do not believe themselves to be currently operating any active accounts on WM sites. As of yet, they have not disputed my claim to the contrary. I take issue with someone claiming my reason for blocking their sock account was wrong, yet then failing to dispute the actual reason I gave.  They cannot have it both ways.  Either my reasoning that Longfellow is the dormant sock of someone with an active WM account is accurate or it is not.  Do they dispute the accuracy of my reason?  Or are they just hoping no one notices that they didn't actually follow up on their premise that my reason was wrong by actually disputing it?--Birgitte SB  19:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * In my opinion there is no evidence that there is any wish for any administrator to remove this block. Accordingly, I would regard it as permanent. Billinghurst (talk) 11:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Provisional ban of the person who most recently edited as Longfellow
FYI - Scriptorium, JeepdaySock (talk) 16:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please review this above topic, and I invite you to add comment here in response. — billinghurst  sDrewth  14:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)