User talk:TomS TDotO

— billinghurst  sDrewth  13:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

User annotation
Gday. Generally for user annotation, we would use the template User annotation, and stick it inside and then plug-in at the base, or sometimes even into the notes inside the header (length and look dependent). This way we can keep the text work as per the work, and commentary separated. — billinghurst  sDrewth  11:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I just split your work to a new page, the new version can be developed at your leisure.  You might be able to think of a better name than Evolution and Ethics (wikisource annotations), there doesn't seem to be any current convention regarding these pages. Let me know if this is all okay, or if you want anything I've done reversed. Thanks for providing the corrections and annotations to the page, my view is that many of them could be included in the so-called 'clean text'. If it needs annotating, more than a piped link, I put them in the notes section of the header template. I've dealt with slightly more complex linking and errors, but a recent one is William Blake, painter and poet and its index; Cygnis insignis (talk) 20:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * When I see a series of citations whose page numbers appear to be incorrect, as with the ref to David's work, my first thought is they may be referring to different edition. The difference is one in the early pages, gradually increasing in later page references, so perhaps it is worth noting that this possibility has been eliminated. If you have that work, as a scan or in some digital format, it would be great if we could make that available, push it to me I would be happy to do the conversion. Regards, Cygnis insignis (talk) 18:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I will keep an eye out for the lecture, because I'm pretty sure I never read it. I wont ask you scan it, because it is a lot of work that others may have done already. I saw your comments at the scriptorium, apologies for failing to note the move there also. As a point of discussion, I read this just the other day. Consider how Shepherd is able be cited for his modifications and that despite his candour on another author's changes he has also been criticised for his own unreported changes in 'facsimiles'. Anyone using a text to this depth would probably not bother to cite, or dispute, User:login's annotations; wikimedians are not a reliable source. Nevertheless, I see great value and potential in annotations and believe that wikibooks can and should develop a system of development, authoritative review, and eventual publication. The fact is that this has trapped in a limbo between the two sites, and that seems to me to have arrested its proper implementation. Wikisource doesn't have the apparatus to check the annotations that pseudonymous users make, it doesn't take much imagination to see how this can go wrong. I've suggested how to enhance a text by linking the author's references, and I can show you some more examples that do not require anything more than a pipe, a note, and a bit of thought, I also made an edit to the 'clean text' to demonstrate how this can done without the novelties that have been presented to you. I hope this is helpful in some way, but I'm not inclined to repeat my views elsewhere. I think much about this site is self evident, but only with the benefit of hindsight; I cannot give you that of course. I just apply the best solutions I've found, I don't have a special claim to them, but quote the concepts I've tried to convey if you like. Regards, Cygnis insignis (talk) 19:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)