User talk:Sherurcij

Collaborative French Translation Needed

The Two Mules

Le Grand Meaulnes

Translation:French Nursery Rhymes

Sherurcij, I cleaned up your navigation template on wikitravel. I hope you don't mind! It was broke pretty bad. Please let me know what you think. Please leave your reply on my talk page. Thanks! --Mattwj2002 (talk) 04:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sherurcij, where do should I send my money for PSM Vol 75? Thanks. Please send me a message. Thanks. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 04:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sherurcij, how exactly do we get the Internet Archive to scan in a volume? You mentioned they would do it for 10 cents a page. I am thinking that is our best bet. Do you have a link to how we get that done? Please reply to this message on my talk page. Thanks for all your help. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 11:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sherurcij, if you send me a link to the web page with the phone numbers, I'll give them a call. Being a US citizen I am sure it is cheaper for me to call then for you. I will also find out more information about that volume to make sure it is the full Popular Science Monthly Volume 75. If we are going to have Internet Archive scan it, we could send the volume here. :) That is if it is okay with you. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 13:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Sherurcij, Thanks for your note. I left the last hyphen in the text to indicate a broken continuity to the next page. When validating, I noticed that I missed the italics of many words and I am checking my work from #72 backwards. If you noticed any other misses, please let me know. Ineuw (talk) 17:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sherurcij, don't forget to update the Template:Collaboration. I am not updating it for the 3rd week in a row!!! :P Also, if you could pop on IRC once and a while I would love to chat. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 02:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ahhhhhh, the name Youmans constantly pops up in the articles, but I never paid attention, thank you. I have to read it again. Ineuw (talk) 16:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

And let's not forget their italicizing to attract the reader's attention, and the style of using an opening double quote " to start a numbered paragraph, without a corresponding closing quote. Did I miss something? Ineuw (talk) 16:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Did you hear back from your friend yet? Also, just to let you know I got Popular Science Monthly Volume 93 Part 1 & 2, Volume 94, and Volume 95 ordered. I hope to talk to you soon. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 18:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sherurcij, I found a weird problem with navigation on this text. On the table of contents it lists two CHAPTER XLIII. The problem is when I created the navigation I created two of these so now it goes in a loop. Do a change this and stray from the original or what else should I do? I just thought I should ask. Also, if you could get back to me about that other thing I would appreciate it. Thanks. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sherurcij, there is CHAPTER XLIII 40 A.H.—Khariji conspiracy—'Ali assassinated—Mu'awiya escapes AND
CHAPTER XLIII 61-64 A.H.—'Alid reaction—Ibn az-Zubeir affects Caliphate—Mecca besieged—Death of Yezid
on both copies. Any suggestions? Thanks for the update. I am sorry for being such a pest about the scanning! --Mattwj2002 (talk) 20:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sherurcij, any suggestion on how to fix this problem? Also, have you heard from your friend? Thanks. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 13:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I just thought I would let you know I ordered Popular Science Monthly Volume 75. I have it shipped to my house. I can ship it in a large flat rate shipping box anywhere in the US for $13.50 usd or anywhere in Canada for $31.30 usd. Anyways, I just thought I would let you know. I left a note on the talk page of the PSM project. Leave me a message on my talk page with any comments or questions. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Just noticed this when I was commenting elsewhere. $13.50 seems expensive. I bought my copy of Volume 1 for $23.50 with $5.55 media mail shipping, and even that was a little high. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 08:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hey Sherurcij, any word from your friend yet? --Mattwj2002 (talk) 17:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

You are the most...:Þ Trust me, when I hear from them, you'll be the first to know. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din.} 17:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Okay I'll lay off. More than anything I am trying to decide if I should send the volumes with you and your friend or if I'll have to pay for themself to be scanned. What can I say? Popular Science Monthly makes me excited. :) --Mattwj2002 (talk) 18:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sherurcij, can you come on IRC? --Mattwj2002 (talk) 02:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hey, Sherurcij! Can you come online again? Thanks. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 17:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Popular Science/Volume 1 is nominated for speedy deletion. Since you created it, I shall let you do the honours or not. Hesperian 12:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Awards for participation
Proofread of the Month November 2009 Special: Validation month Proofread of the Month March 2010 Bull-dog Drummond Proofread of the Month April 2010 Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc ‎ Proofread of the Month May 2010 Crainquebille, Putois, Riquet and other profitable tales

Sherurcij is there only one djvu file or multiple? Please let me know before I proceed. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 03:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I suspect that Eliza Youmans and Prof. Quatrefages have something going there, don't you? It's the only work she translates and I am sure that there were other French scientists clamoring to be published? :-D Ineuw (talk) 04:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the link. I was only joking. :-) I love reading these old articles, and amazed at the amount of modern scientific knowledge that was known at that time. Also, there ought to be a link on his Wikipedia page to his articles here. I just don't know how to do that yet. Ineuw (talk) 04:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I see that you edited this page. I had done a little work there where I showed an example with author names and where these articles were previously published. Is there some reason why you would not want to retain that kind of information? Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 08:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sherurcij can you come back to IRC? --Mattwj2002 (talk) 03:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sherurcij you around? --Mattwj2002 (talk) 05:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sherurcij, I have a DJVU file for these documents. Unfortunately, I am having some problem doing the OCR. Do you want me to upload the file without the OCR. Can you come on IRC sometime and talk about it? Please let me know. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 00:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Why did you remove most works? [1] Yann (talk) 14:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

For COTW, it was reduced to just the list of works that existed, looks like it never got changed back. Looks like you fixed it, thanks. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din.} 15:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I think the links to translator's pages are useful. Please do not remove them. Yann (talk) 11:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Sherurcij, what did you want for a title for "Patriotic Address In Aid of the Widows and Orphans of the Canadian Soldiers Killed in the South African War" that is a bit long. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 21:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Another contributor recently moved Affidavit of Emina Planja from the top of w:Boudella el Hajj to the bottom. Their explanation was: "No reason to have this link to this primary source at the top of the page."

So, can I ask your guidance as to placement of links to wikisource documents within wikipedia articles? Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 21:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

That sounds like a great idea, what about giving The Kingdom of God some well deserved (and well needed) attention? Or maybe A Letter to a Hindu? I won't be able to do anything serious until next week though. --The Illusional Ministry (talk) 18:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I didn't check before I answered, apparently it has been greatly improved since the last time i checked. Maybe we could do One Life, which is currently a red link. There is a Author:Leo Wiener translation on archive.org. If you're up to it we could even do one whole volume off his The Complete Works of Count Tolstoy.--The Illusional Ministry (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Your book When You Go Home Take This Book With You is uploaded and I have used ThomasV's OCR tool and uploaded the OCR as well. Let me know if you have any questions or problems. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 01:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sherurcij, I just finished uploading the document and the OCR for Canadian Appeal for the Widows and Orphans of the South African War. I just thought I would let you know. Please let me know if you have any questions or problems. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 01:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Gday. This work is unsource, unheaded, etc. Do you know anything about it. If we cannot get data then we probably should nominate it for deletion. billinghurst (talk) 11:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Although it is the story of a Sahaba (Companion of Muhammad, like the 12 Disciples), it reads like a fairly modern translation so I would not oppose deletion as its source cannot be found online. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Thomas Carlyle.} 12:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Do you think you could do the red links instead, I'm still a bit new and not entirely sure how to do it. --The Illusional Ministry (talk) 17:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Do you have any news about your request? Regards, Yann (talk) 00:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I moved User:Sherurcij/MainPageRedesign from User:Sherurcin/MainPageRedesign. I have assumed it was a forgotten subpage so the last edit blanked the page to stop it appearing in the what links here. I also notice you are marking Page:space as proofread; my understanding is that this is done when the page is fully checked and corrected, but you do not appear to have even attempted this. Are you using some other interpretation of 'proofread' or are you attempting to make a point about something you loathe. Cygnis insignis (talk) 04:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about with the Page namespace, I've proofread, validated and corrected hundreds of them - and while I'm a vocal critic of those who insist on them, I'm hardly the type of person who sabotages projects. In December alone, I have done nearly 150 pages, and added the works Lundy's Lane Battle, Training for Citizenship, When You Go Home Take This Book With You, Some Muslim Laws and Beliefs and Jesus: as God; as a Man, all from the PAGE namespace, all proofread accurately, the random stray comma or semi-colon notwithstanding. It's not the first unkind assertion you've made towards me in the past couple months as I recall, so I am getting a bit defensive and would like you to explain your accusation. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Thomas Carlyle.} 04:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Sherurcij. The name you selected is not correct. Please check this document for the PSM page names. Page names — Ineuw (talk) 03:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Sherurcij, the TOC is in the process of being moved from my development area. It's there for the time being because of the page naming, being custom and not part of the original scans. Also, I would very much like to coordinate with you and other PSM editors, the editing process.

I am not sure what you were referring to in your message:

we should have a copy of the magazine in the MAIN namespace rather than simply as an INDEX.

— Ineuw (talk) 15:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Gday. Would you mind having a look at Author:Omar Khadr and applying the appropriate tag for copyright. Thanks. billinghurst (talk) 13:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Similarly

• Author:Margaret Laing, no idea of where or when, any idea even of the period

Hello, I just dropped by to let you know that I began a tentative table of contents for the work so that we could perhaps eliminate the names from the actual links of the pages themselves. Just wondering if you thought this was feasible or not considering how many "unknown" page titles there are. I have noticed that a lot of the "unknowns" are letters and could be named "Letter to Blank" or "Letter from Blank. Your input would be much appreciated as you are the creator of the index. --Xxagile (talk) 02:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ok. I have asked him for his input and will proceed with the information he gives me. I have also gone through a lot of the pages recently and typed up the text because the OCR is pretty unreadable. They are here if you are interesting in proofreading them. Thanks for your reply! --Xxagile (talk) 05:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sherurcij,

Are you still around? I sent you an e-mail with no response. I hope all is well. Please leave me a quick message if you get this. Thanks. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 04:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm around, didn't see an eMail though. Sadly I just don't have the drive to do much on WS nowadays, hopefully it's just a phase. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Thomas Carlyle.} 16:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Just read your note. The TOCs, headers, & indexes for Volumes 9 & 10 are ready, and will install them progressively during the next day or two. I was spending time on missed articles in vol 5. and creating PSM specific templates. — Ineuw (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Here are the results of the first 10 volumes: Articles by category. I hope this helps.— Ineuw (talk) 00:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

This is nominated for speedy deletion as redundant to another work. I'll let you do the honours. Hesperian 00:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm back to add works for women that I added biographies for on EN WP for U.S. Women's History Month. See my WP page for a list. w:User:FloNight

I planned to wait till the end of March to add the works here. But Henry's writing is a key part of her life so I decided to add them first to link to her bio that I'm still writing.

• The New Woman of the New South by Author:Josephine K. Henry.

What are you up to these day? FloNight (talk) 12:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your help! I've replied at the Scriptorium and added the first two pages of text, but I have another question — could you move the first two pages of text into subpages? The second page begins with the words "THE Reformed Dissenting Presbytery met according to adjournment". My apologies for not doing much by myself; I've never done anything with any WMF projects aside from Wikipedia and Commons, and I'm finding WS quite different and rather confusing. Nyttend (talk) 04:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

NOTE: I had posted this on the copyright discussion page but Billinghurst moved it...he might be right about moving it...any way, here it is: Formosa (talk) 14:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

User Sherucij left this message for me on my talk page - and because I think it relates to my contributions on this project page, I thought it as well to share it with all here. It has some marginal relevance to this project in so far as it seems to relate to how participants here should interact.

Just a hint that the vast majority of users on this project know each other quite closely, and have ironed out their differences over the years. This means, while there is not a "cabal", people are likely to take offense when you act aggressively towards any user, even if it is not them...divide and conquer isn't quite as useful a strategy here as on other WMF projects. If you eased your tone a little, and would accept criticism without firing back at people trying to help you, it would go a long way towards ensuring your long-term acceptance on the project. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Thomas Carlyle.} 23:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Re. "vast majority of users on this project know each other quite closely, and have ironed out their differences over the years." - I am not into personalities...not on the Internet....Rest assured, if I disagree with you, it does not mean that I have a bad opinion of your person. I do not know you.

Re. "This means, while there is not a "cabal", people are likely to take offense when you act aggressively towards any user, even if it is not them...divide and conquer isn't quite as useful a strategy here as on other WMF projects." As, I say, I am not about personalities. If you think I have done something that is in some way 'out of order', please be specific and I will certainly read what you say.

Re. "If you eased your tone a little, and would accept criticism without firing back at people trying to help you, it would go a long way towards ensuring your long-term acceptance on the project". This suggests that I have the wrong "tone" - What tone should participants have here....one wonders? To be honest, I do not really like your tone in that sentence. It seems a bit threatening. Its as if, if I do not change my tone, I will be kicked off this project? Maybe I am misinterpreting you there. As I say, if I have done anything in any way out of order, please be specific and tell me what it is. Generally, I prefer to stick to discussion of specific points related to the project though and not get bogged down in personality 'nit-picking' etc. Thanks. Formosa (talk) 13:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I was being bold to make the changes to these templates, and I hope that they worked okay for you. Happy to any tweaks if you can think of any. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

THey threw me off for a couple seconds, but it looks like they work well. If there's any way to make the front page template automatically pull out the name of the infofield on the COTW template that'd be awesome of course...or vice versa. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Charlotte Mason.} 01:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Dear Sherurcij – I have become fairly active on the Wikisource:Possible copyright violations ‎ discussion page in recent times. You are probably familiar with some of the issues I have raised there (including what is meant by an “Edict of Government”). On 2 May 2010 I made a number of edits. Most of these edits related to me “tagging, hiding and listing for discussion” works that were labeled as “Edicts of Government” (e.g. South African political speeches, a national anthem and other works). The same day Administrator Billinghurst blocked me. I cannot say precisely why – as he did not give precise reasons – but the general heading he gave was that “Okay, that is too rampant” (i.e. I was being too active in ““tagging, hiding and listing for discussion”).

I have disagreed with Billinghurst on a number of copyright points of late – basically, I would like the same standard to be applied to all works. The same high standard that is – even if that means that a lot of works need to be listed for discussion etc - but his approach is different. I think Billinghurst views me as ‘trouble’. In contrast, I think I have made a worthwhile contribution, prompting interesting discussions, greater clarity and the removal of some works. Indeed, the works I “tagged, hid and listed for discussion” on 2 May 2010 have led to interesting copyright discussions on the copyright violations discussion page. I would like Billinghurst to apologise for blocking me and somehow “expunge” my record.

I would appreciate any contribution you would like to make on my talk page where my block is being discussed. I am sending this message to all persons who have participated on the same copyright violation discussions as me. I do not know how else to generate further participation in the discussion concerning my block save direct messages – as I cannot list this matter (a personal one) on the copyright violations page. The discussion is at User talk:Formosa. Given my treatment, I admit to feeling a bit disheartened about my continuing involvement in the copyright violations project. Thanks. Formosa (talk) 13:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I noticed some discussion from back in Sept-Oct 09 regarding someone upset with this, though I could only locate it in a previous revision and not in the actual page archives so it may have been mistakenly omitted from archiving. I thought to bring it to your attention since you uploaded this historical work that it is being discussed on Whales' Wikipedia talk page. Ty (talk) 03:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

See Wikisource:Scriptorium#Proposal to rename Wikisource:Collaboration of the Week. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Aw shit, I just saw your userpage. Noooo..... John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Gday Sherurcij. It is confirmation time and your statements are being interpreted as you having left the project. If that is not the case, then please would you put some comment onto Wikisource:Administrators#Sherurcij. Hope all is well. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I see you left the building back last May but I'm leaving the courtesy notice anyway. :)

I have started a discussion at Wikisource:Possible copyright violations#Zodiac Cipher which you are invited to join. Thank you,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Gday Sherurcij. Hoping one day that your eyes again wander this page. Three images need some detail to identify WTH they R.

• File:Examiner-letter-3.jpg
• File:Examiner-letter-2.gif
• File:Examiner-letter-2.jpg

Thanks. Otherwise they will be deletion fodder. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Author:Ayman_al-Zawahiri&diff=916860&oldid=916827 - why did you remove this, twice? (Now it's a dead link.)

Sherurcij is long retired, maybe one day he will be back, but don't expect an answer any time soon. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:39, 8 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello Sherurcij!

First, thank you for your contributions to Wikisource. Any contributions are always very much appreciated. While searching around, I noticed that you have some files that you uploaded to Wikisource that would probably serve the community better if it was on Wikimedia Commons, a media file repository. You can view your files to see which ones I'm referring to. See the Image Guidelines for more information.

Why should you do this?

As an example, let's pretend you extracted a hard-to-find image from a book written in 1870. If you upload it to Wikisource, only Wikisource users can use it. What if a user from Japan is writing an article about a similar topic? If your file is on Wikisource, it's unlikely he'll find it, and if he's lucky enough to find it, he still won't be able to use it easily. However, if you uploaded it to Commons, it's much more likely he'll find it and be able to use it. (Files hosted on Commons are accessible from any sister project) The same goes for any PDF or DJVU files you upload as well.

• Upload a file to Wikimedia Commons
• Wikimedia Commons Welcome Page
• A guide to contributing content to Wikimedia Commons

Note: To "move" a page from Wikisource to Commons is simple, but somewhat confusing if you don't know how to. First, upload the file to Commons with the same file name as you did here. Add the same information, making sure you put in the correct license. I suggest adding the {{Wikisource image}} template to its Commons page. Then edit the file's page at Wikisource and add the template {{Now Commons}}. Soon an administrator will complete the "move" by deleting the Wikisource copy (as it's no longer needed). You don't need to change any tags on Wikisource as they'll automatically point to the new file. Awesome!

If you have any questions or concerns, don't be afraid to ask.

The Haz _talk 04:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sherurcij should be considered retired. One should double-check all his files, rigor in licensing may mean that they are not suitable for Commons, though of course we should be lopoking to move them over wherever possible. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)Reply