User talk:Flux.books

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] A welcome from Sango123

Hello, Flux.books, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make goofy mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy Wiki-ing!

-- Sango123 (talk) 16:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)

[edit] Re: How to stop?

The affliction would be a little something called Wikipediholism. :) Sango123 (talk) 20:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A welcome from Apwoolrich

I am glad to see the progress you have made on Encyclopaedias. It now has the making a a fine article indeed. Have you yet looked at Wikisource? We have a project of putting the whole of EB1911 online in an accurate form as a service to WP editors and posterity generally. We are in need of new keen editors for this. The trouble with the modern EB is how much has been cut of historical value, especially on British and Europoean history. I would also like to see added in due time the 3 volumes covering WW1 which make the 12th edition. I have recently put on the WS EB1911 project page the introduction and I am part way through putting up the list of contributors from the Index Volume. I also wrote trhe WP biogrpahy of Hugh Chisholm and Janet E. Courtney who were on the EB1911 editorial team. Encyclopaedias fascinate me and I collect them dealing with C19 technology. Kind regards. You can respond on my WP talk page. Apwoolrich 07:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

re your response, you might care to have a look at [[1]] on Wikisource and follow the links. The guy who has started this runs Project Runeberg, digitising Scandinavian texts, and is working on a scheme to enable Mediawiki to handle digitised texts and edits. Its early days yet. The thread of SHARP-L I mention has a great deal of valuable info, with references to downloadable reports. Compared with working on WP, learning the edit codings for WS is taking some doing, since much more needs to be known, that is needed for the usual WP work and I certainly have had some hassle in finding the various reference pages of how to do it. I am practicing editing the Ballistics article from EB1911 which somebody posted, which includes, Roman and Greek letters, fractions, mathematical formulae, tables and uploaded drawings!! Its not that hard but needs application and patience. I scan and OCR for my work, but its mostly regular stuff which does not cause a problem. The most difficult job I have ever done was several reports from Edinburgh Encyclopaedia, Rees's Cyclopeadia and EB6ed. The typefaces were iffy and the hand-made paper had blemishes in it which caused problems. Apwoolrich 21:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] CfD nomination of Category:Serials, periodicals and journals

Category:Serials, periodicals and journals, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Cgingold (talk) 11:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This is an excellent example of why wikipedia is fatally flawed. The "discussion" is in effect a poll from random collection of passersby who chose to comment, none of whom made an effort to understand the key issues. It isn't a matter of what people feel the terms mean. There's an established science on the matter. If the terms are out of date, fine - cite a better reference and change the terms. But don't spew about what you think they mean. flux.books (talk) 01:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)