User talk:Simon Harley

From The Dreadnought Project
Jump to: navigation, search

Consulting the Editor

Am going to back up the Wiki tomorrow, actually. Do you use anything like Google Talk or Facebook chat, etc? we can coordinate the downtime better (actually, just read-only time) Tone 21:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

All done. I have a script that does the work in about 1 minute. A backup of the images and the database takes 250MB at present. Tolerable. I may try to make an automated script that does this once a week, keeping 3 backups on hand, in case of disaster. We'd be relying only on the entire disk not dying, which is backed up, I think, by my ISP. I will double check that! Tone 16:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Cheers, Tone. Did you get my email from this morning? —Simon Harley 16:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

These "Talks" are clumsy. Can you come up on Gmail's chat thing, or Facebook or anything? Tone 20:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Any chance we could move the "document table" to a common page and I could throw my own holdings in? We'd use more color to mark the editors in question, or simply have 2 tables, but having the documents listed on one page would emphasise the collective holdings. Tone 19:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Check out the new The_Dreadnought_Project:Archival_Documents page. I will be adding my own materials to it. Can you tell me what "Command Papers" are? I should perhaps have added them, but did not know to what extent they resembled the other work.

Looks good to me. Command Papers are reports printed for the benefit of the British Parliament, but can be purchased by interested parties. Primary source, but some have to be used with caution as the Admiralty was hardly going to reveal everything of note to the G.B.P. (the Great British Public).
Thanks for correcting my many and varied typos, by the way. Very embarrassing (especially since Google Chrome has spellcheck!). —Simon Harley 19:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

SImon ... I added [[the table-based list of archive documents to the "Sources" category. I almost think it should be placed as text in that category article itself. How can we go about making sure your additions to your own page that occurred after I set this one up and be merged into it? I'd think the history of your page's changes would be helpful. I'd really like to see this done, as it indicates both where a given document resides, who (between us) is the local custodian or point of inquiry, and also a measure of how much of the document we have in hand -- PLUS with sortable columns which is a real boon. If there are reasons you don't find the my version of this page purely better than the old one where they differ, let's examine those faults and see if they prevail or if they can indeed be addressed within the more robust form. Tone 10:20, 1 February 2012 (EST)