User talk:Billinghurst/2009

Security council resolutions

Thanks soooo much for all your work at Wikisource:United Nations Security Council Resolutions. Suicidalhamster (talk) 12:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome. Having a couple of useful tools and the second PC beside me makes it easier. That said, it is taking a little longer than expected. Next time it is for the BOT to do! <vbg> -- billinghurst (talk) 12:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Admin?

I keep seeing your name, doing all kinds of good work. I checked your SUL and looked at your talk page here and at Commons:User talk:Billinghurst and at W:User:Billinghurst, and it looks like I get to be the first one to ask you. Would you like to be nominated for Adminship at Wikisource? Jeepday (talk) 01:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Umm, I don't mind. If we need admins, then okay. If we have enough admins, then I am happy to keep contributing as I have been until now. I cannot say what additional benefit the admin tools would be to the work that I have been doing. -- billinghurst (talk) 11:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The question is not if we need another admin or not, it is more about you and taking the next step in volunteering at Wikisource. Take a look Wikisource:Adminship The tools that come with Adminship generally fall into two categories: maintenance and fighting vandalism, if you don't want to use them, then giving them to you would be pointless. Your edits at JVbot and this recent edit in particular indicate that you are working at a level where having the tools would be beneficial to the project. Your edit history indicates to me you have the potential to have an increased positive impact to the project if given more tools and that you would use them responsibly. Take you time and think about it, if you get ready to see if the rest of community thinks the same, you can post your own nomination at Wikisource:Administrators or let me know and I would be happy to nominate you. In the meantime thanks for all your good work and happy editing. Jeepday (talk) 12:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen quite enough of you to be in a position to encourage or discourage you, but I can say these two things:

1. Based on what I have seen, I would support;
2. I've hit the delete button quite a few times this year on pages you nominated for speedy. Surely the ability to delete these pages yourself qualifies as "additional benefit the admin tools would be to the work that I have been doing".

Hesperian 10:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, my arm is politely twisted and I am happy to submit to nomination. Thanks for a confidence in me. -- billinghurst (talk) 10:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

* You have been nominated :) Jeepday (talk) 13:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

2004 Speeches Wikilinks

Hi, I spotted you'd removed the wikilinks for the year 2004 on the speeches page, mind letting me know why, is this a new convention for date links or just something relevant to 2004? Thanks AllanHainey (talk) 12:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Convention? What convention. Closest that I could find was Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2006-05#Page Linking

Wikipedia discourages date linking, so I cut it down to one overarching link at the top of the 2004 section rather than against each of the dates. I was just working on the 2004 section, and was working on a string of fixes and haven't yet got back to the page. I suppose I also wanted to watch for a general reaction. <shrug> -- billinghurst (talk) 12:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't aware of any convention or guidelines on date linking I just wanted to check. The scriptorium comments & your changes are probably the best way to go, though we'll need to make the whole page consistent at some point - at least for those ones where the actual year rather than the decade is listed at the top of the section. I'll try to do some of this later on. AllanHainey (talk) 14:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I have been and done a modification. Go for improving it. -- billinghurst (talk) 15:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Mountaintop

Any remarks to this?--Goiken (talk) 17:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Mind (journal)

I would strongly discourage the gratuitous renaming of pages. Renaming a page is a radical edit and should not be done without careful consideration. If you are asking for my opinion, no I do not think The Refutation of Idealism should be renamed. If WS allows every 20-30 word Dickinson poem to have its own top level privilege, they can give the same right to an occasional 10,000 word essay by the likes of G. E. Moore or Bertrand Russell. If you contribute a Mind article and want to name it: Mind (journal)/Volume 12 (New Series)/… I will fully respect your judgment on the matter, but unless I am breaking some Wikisource rule, I stand by my editorial decisions.Ingram (talk) 12:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood what you were proposing. Show me which periodical you are currently working on, and send me a link so I can see what you are doing. Thanks, Ingram (talk) 04:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

my problem with the title

It is redundant. The "page name" is in huge black letters, then right below it, is the title, which is exactly the same as the page name, but in small letters, in a little blue box. In essence, it is not aesthetically pleasing to my ear or eye. Is there no solution to this problem? Thank you for reading. --Decora (talk) 01:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It may seem redundant, however, it isn't. Many full titles of works do not directly align with the pagename, especially works with very long titles, and where there are sections to works. I am told that the title field is specifically aligned with search criteria, and is a requirement. Thanks for helping out on this occasion. -- billinghurst (talk) 03:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the information , i appreciate it.

Congrats!

You're a sysop! Let me know if you have any questions.--BirgitteSB 01:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Ditto, Jeepday (talk) 01:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks. -- billinghurst (talk) 01:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

New author pages

Please place the obituary information within the description. Traditionally, we should only have the list of works exterior to the template. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It is immediate secondary source material, not descriptive. In some ways it almost becomes About the author, though as it is a snippet, so it sort of belongs in both or neither. The template doesn't necessarily meet the needs for snippets of information. The issue also becomes that the text in Description is reasonably small, and I am aware of people who are unable to read it. -- billinghurst (talk) 10:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I've never seen this done before, and I'm telling you that it's pretty much against all the guidelines I know in this area. Arguing over whether it is a "description" or not isn't relevant; if it's not one of his works, it belongs in his description; if it doesn't belong there either, then it doesn't belong on the page. But, there's no point arguing over something as petty as this, as I say, just letting you know my thoughts. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you were talking about the obituary, not the death notice snippet. I did discuss the Obituary placement and I was pretty much instructed that it was a ==Works about author==. When I asked about Author pages in my early days I was directed to pages like Author:William Shakespeare, and it is the style used in many WS author pages that point to internal items about the author. It is one that I have replicated on many author pages. If it is a concern, then maybe we should put it before the community. -- billinghurst (talk) 11:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I was actually referring to things like this:

MACDONELL.—On the 20th Jan., (St. Agnes Eve), at 31 Kensington Park-gardens, suddenly and peacefully Dame Agnes Macdonell, widow of Sir John Macdonell, K.C.B.

I don't believe this should be outside of the description in the template. Author pages do, after all, primarily function in directing the reader to the works of the author, not providing much information *about* them. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will move them to subsidiary pages and put them into ==Works about author==. -- billinghurst (talk) 11:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Three Stories and Ten Poems

I don't understand this edit, and its relationship to the subject of works by Ernest Hemingway, Jeepday (talk) 12:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I have a tired brain, however, I thought that there was also a request for the copyright document to be added to WS for easy reference/quoting. If not, then I misunderstood. If it would have been added as a comment to user page, okie dokie. -- 12:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! That was what I was looking for.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Suck in text ...

sDrewth I was just wondering what you wanted me to do with Index:Highlights of Copyright Amendments Contained in the URAA Circular 38B Rev07-2006.djvu. What do you mean suck in the text? Do you mean to add the text as a text layer in the djvu? If that is what you mean, I am not sure if we know how to do that yet. If you have any questions or comments, please leave a message on my talk page. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 23:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

You have already done it, and it is all in place and public. Nothing else needs to be done. Thanks. -- billinghurst (talk) 07:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

{{Indexes}} template

Thanks for the tip about the {{Indexes}} template. It looks like it would be very useful for documents that fit into multiple categories and for documents displayed in succession. I'll experiment with it. -- LegalBeagle (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Re:{{Anchor}}

Thank you. -dingar (talk) 12:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

"Constitution of the United States of America" in the Page: namespace

I have setup pages for both the "handwritten text"(in the page namespace) and United States Constitution Broadsid Printed by John Carter Rhode Island Providence in the page namespace) AKA "The Print Text" They just need to be poof.--Lookatthis (talk) 05:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

SANU Memorandum

Ive gone ahead and added the English translation, and adding images would help. PRODUCER (talk) 01:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Separate main and author namespaces

I have just replied at my talk page. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

One more reply there. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Template {{Spoken}}

Nice work with {{Spoken}}, especially the changes for different namespaces. I wasn't sure how to handle individual spoken chapters within a largely non-spoken work. I've been spending some spare time trying to add it to all of the appropriate authors although that might take a while to complete. Again, nice work and thanks. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your words. Nice to have the impetus to support what you have been working upon.

My gut feel on Works in the main namespace

• If it is only a small component of the chapters of a work, to mark the individual components. Note though I have reduced the size of the icon to 15px to reduce the impact.
• If the bulk, or all, of the work has sound files, then I think that I will just put the {{Spoken}} at the top and let it be.

There may be scope to upgrade the template to amend the text to state all, some or maybe even specific, however, for that I will probably need to ask someone questions about more intricate templates. Feedback there most welcome. -- billinghurst (talk) 23:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Illegible words/charcters...

In regard to this template...

Yes, I was planning to flag the pages affected as problematic as well.

Having a separate category was to also allow for someone more experienced to look through the category and try and reconstruct the text. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Additional : It also allows with slight modification a template for marking sections in a work

where the original text is illegible or not decipherable ( as opposed to the issue just being a poor quality scan). In this instance the colors should ideally be subject to further disscussion. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Swiss Family Robinson, in Words of One Syllable

Thank you for restoring those deleted pages. I noticed that you changed the <pagelist> section so that the pictures and blank pages are not displayed differently and the numbered pages do not correspond to the index numbers.... Would you mind joining the discussion regarding this on the talk page? I could just revert it, but want to make sure there is no particular reason why you changed it beyond your preference compared to my preference. If it is that the yellow boxes do not line up nicely, I could go looking for a way to get that fixed... if it's something else, just make a note over there. Thanks, --Mkoyle (talk) 11:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Nothing special, more my standard practice. -- billinghurst (talk) 11:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Responded in situ on respective talk page. :-) billinghurst (talk) 11:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Bot

Per Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume I, note that the subfield in the title before the last section, Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume I/JUSTIN MARTYR/Dialogue with Trypho is the author's name. Whether you can properly lower-case the necessary letters with a bot however, I'm not sure. Note also that any text which has the last subfield begin with the phrase "Introductory Note" should not bump Philip to "translator", but leave him as author. Sorry for the confusion, it's a wonderful collection of works, just messily organised right now. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Romain Rolland.} 00:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't so much mean you had to move them to "/Justin Martyr/" as just put "Justin Martyr" in the |author= field. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Romain Rolland.} 00:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Revert

Hello,

Why did you revert this edit? [1] These are good changes. Yann (talk) 13:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

There was no quoting on the source for making the changes, or whether they are the person correcting spelling. In the page there is the statement

“

Errors in numbering have been corrected, but the original spelling is unchanged.

”

I put a comment on the IP talk page asking for them to quote their source if they were using one, or whether it was a correction of spelling. -- billinghurst (talk) 13:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, these are obviously spelling errors (Freinds -> Friends, Atchievements -> Achievements). I think we shouldn't require unnecessary bureaucracy for simple corrections. I put the corrections back. Yann (talk) 16:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Spelling mistakes by the original author? Or typing mistakes by the transcriber? If the author, then they should remain as the author presented, and leave history to interpret and draw their own conclusions. All transcribers should type what they see, and not amend.

My commentary to the fixer was exactly about whether they were drawing on the document or their sense of spelling. If the former, then please go ahead and make the correction, if the later, then probably leave it as it is. If they had been a registered account, then I could have had the query with them prior to reversion. As an IP, it is harder to go back and manage. If it had been commented, then that may have been different, but it wasn't. -- billinghurst (talk) 06:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think keeping this kind of errors is beneficial to our readers, even if they were present in the original scan. I don't think that is the case, and we don't have the scan anyway. This is certainly not the spelling the original author wanted, and quite different that an alternative acceptable spelling, either because of language or typography. I may be mistaken, but I don't think these spellings exist in any form of Middle/Old English. Yann (talk) 15:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

At the point that someone starts to make assumptions about what the author meant, not what the author wrote, we are entering interpretation. Entering into interpretation is very much in the eye of the beholder, and can have both positive and negative consequences. Where does it start and end? Punctation? Which version of spelling? Correcting surnames? What rules? To what end? Is there an end? Having participated in, undertaken and managed transcription projects over twenty years, the rules are TYPE WHAT YOU SEE. Commentary and proposals have their place, but not in the body of the text. I am strongly against editors on WS making undocumented and unreferenced corrections based on their whim, and correcting spelling without commentary to what they think that it should be is whim. -- billinghurst (talk) 06:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that this is very much a principle of whether of Type What You See, or correcting errors, and if we are at disagreement, I would like if we could refer the discussion to the community at WS:S. -- billinghurst (talk) 07:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think the issue can be brought to the community. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the rule should be 'type what you see'. However, since this text has no scans, we do not see anything. I do not see why we should trust the note that has been left by that anonymous user; there's also no reason to believe that these spelling errors were transcription errors made by that user.

Texts without scans cannot be trusted, no matter how many 'notes' are appended. I think it's a waste of time to correct them; it is also a waste of time to fight against them being corrected. I suggest to put a banner on the page, warning readers that the text is unreliable.

ThomasV (talk) 07:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Bot edit.

Hey Billinghurst,

I was just wondering about an edit SDrewthbot made a few days ago; see here. It seemed to have blanked the page, in the despite of its edit summary. Any thoughts? —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Gday AD. Very weird, and I cannot explain it. All the other pages around it have behaved very nicely, and running the same components of search and replace. Nice get AD! I have been running my eye down the logs as I have been doing them and didn't see this variation. Would you mind letting me in on how you identified it from among the morass. Thanks. billinghurst (talk) 12:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It's all in the beauty of Special:ShortPages, which I make a point of periodically checking. ;-) —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Too sneaky. Interesting that there are a number of redirects there with relative links, which fail miserably. More curatorial places to find things to fix. <eyeroll> -- billinghurst (talk) 12:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed... —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Re:Little note about Copyright tags and Categories

I understand your point. I was mainly interested in having the character list for quick access to the pages, and I did not realize that the category was included in my copy/paste, inside the templates. Sorry for that. As you later remarked, I copied the template(s) from the initial pages, and thought that someone had started to do the job and hadn't finished it till the end... Regards, Mschlindwein (talk) 00:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Omnibuses and Cabs is done!

sDrewth,

Omnibuses and Cabs is done! I just thought you would like to know.

Regards,

Matt

BONZER! -- billinghurst (talk) 09:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Bible

Are you aware of these slanderous (and frequently downright ungrammatical) edits? RHaworth (talk) 01:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Bible is neither my area of speciality nor greatest knowledge; for someone with a better background in the area, please do query User:Shererucij.

To the specifics:

• the formal works where there has been modifications without evidence of reference, I believe that they have been reverted during the patrol phase.
• To the interpretation of the Bible (Wikisource), no, and I am not the person to ask.
• To the new works introduced, if they exist and have been published (which is WS criteria), then each of us can make our own judgements on the content and quality of the books, as did the people at the time of the original publication. If they were slanderous and legitimately published, they are no more slanderous now and still legitimately published, and the person slandered should have taken the legal action to have had the books dealt with at the time of publication.
  • If your concern is that they have not been published or are not historical documents, then the process is to request the evidence, and if it is not forthcoming, then we have a [WS:DP|policy]] and process for getting non-compliant works deleted.
• I can say that I have been watching the edits, and if action is required by the community through its administrators, then it will be undertaken.

-- billinghurst (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I found the above rather confusing but then my message was not specific enough about which edits. "If action is required by the community" - my concern was that edits to Bible (Wikisource)/Genesis have been going on for two months and nobody has done anything about it. But at least you left JoshuaSlanders a message. Thanks. RHaworth (talk) 09:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

That piece is not one that I know what specifically is going on, asking on the Talk page of the root page would be my advice. The work is a collaborative effort and not one for which I know the rules. There are versions of the Bible at WikiSource. The community as a whole tries to patrol edits made and provide some quality control to proceedings. -- billinghurst (talk) 09:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Elohist got recreated. Please delete. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Prose Formatting

Hi Billinghurst

Thanks for the suggestion on the prose format. I prefer this particular layout as it is in keeping with the model used for the other entries for 'The Blue Story Book'. It's my first day, and I am having trouble getting to grips with the formatting codes. I intend to upload scans of the illustrations for this story from the original book, and the entire entry as a pdf file to be linked to from the entry.

Regards, Ricardo

Thanks!

Thank you! Yet another transcription project I can comfortably ignore. ;) Jude (talk) 04:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Abso-bloody-lutely!. -- billinghurst (talk)

Indexes

Oh no, somebody is ret-conning all my |previous= to the new {{indexes}}! I'm kidding, glad to see it being worked on - but FYI, I think "consensus" ("the idea"? I'm not sure it was voted) was to include the {{indexes}} template in the |notes= section of the header. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Romain Rolland.} 16:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Strange deletions

I was browsing the deletion log, and found it difficult to reconcile a text like Murder of Levi Jones which was clearly transwikied, and just needed a {{header}} and {{incomplete}}, and was labeled as an 1880 work as fitting the need for speedy deletion without comment. Most of your other deletions seemed fine, but this one caught my eye and I wanted to ask if you'd restore it - and open discussion at PD if you thought it still needed discarding. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Romain Rolland.} 07:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure. -- billinghurst (talk) 07:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Vital Principle

Hi Billinghurst,

I haven't found a good solution yet to solve the problem of leaving a choice to the user between having a text with notes and comments or without them: the Vital Principle was used by me to do tests about that, so it would be kind of you not to delete it (and kinder if you might help to find a solution about how to give the user such a choice). Regards, Zyephyrus (talk) 08:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

header

I changed the header again, but don't have an objection to its being reverted. Regards, Cygnis insignis (talk) 00:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Mate, you do good work, your opinion is as valid as mine. I have no worries. :-) -- billinghurst (talk) 00:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Markle's annotations

I'll go through them sometime today or some time tonight and most likely nominate those suggested for deletion at WS:PD. Jude (talk) 02:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Great. I also like Markle's reasoning around the US Code and draft legislation, and the broader implications, that as it is dynamic that it isn't worth tracking. The closest that we may get is that the starting point for historic legislation may be available for comparison with the finished product, though that would be the exception, not the rule. So we can classify draft legislation as not having been published, and unless it is significant, then it doesn't qualify as historic document. Thoughts? -- billinghurst (talk) 02:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

USC is interesting. I'm not really sure what should be done with it, but I have to agree that it's a bit of a hopeless cause in attempting to have a complete accurate version of it. Draft legislation is a draft, and, though I don't want to get in a notability-clause issue, I don't really see any point keeping it, especially if it's not been adopted and it is unlikely that it ever will be. Jude (talk) 02:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi, Billinghurst,

Thank you so much for the welcome message. Trying to contribute to some Projects here. It will take a time till I get used to everything in your language, but it is a great thing to be here as well. Regards, Manoel Fernández^Msg 15:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Most welcome. As a person limited to one language, I think those working in a second, third, ... do an admirable job. Happy to help as needed. -- billinghurst (talk) 22:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

Thanks for the welcome, very interesting project! Avapepper (talk) 00:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hah, we crossed in user-space non-reality. You're very very welcome. I am a more recent convert, though well embedded now. -- billinghurst (talk) 00:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

And I thank you as well.

You'll find we are own our little corner … free from all the drama, arguments and policy violations you may be used to seeing elsewhere.

(smile) Double thanks. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 09:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Treatise on Law

There is a story behind the Treatise on Law subpages, but rest assured I did not originate them.

In June 2006, Treatise on Law was substantially complete, entirely due to my own work. But User:GrafZahl decided the work was too long to fit on one page and started to split the work into a table of contents and a separate page for each question. I on the other hand thought the work was at a reasonable maximum length, but not larger (especially with the navigation aids I added to the work), restored my version and migrated his separated table of contents to a page I called Treatise on Law (Q by Q) in July 2006. Then I linked his table of contents at the new location to the subpages he originated in the Treatise on Law domain so he would be sure to find them. I don't think those pages have been touched since July 2006, but long story short, you'll have to ask User:GrafZahl what he wants to do with them. ResScholar (talk) 04:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

okie dokie. Thx for getting back to me. -- billinghurst (talk) 04:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Moving Life and Journals of Keh-ke-wa-guo-nā-ba: (Rev. Peter Jones,) Wesleyan Missionary

As long as you're moving it, it should go to Kah-ke-wa-quo-nā-by, not Keh-ke-wa-guo-nā-ba. I've been meaning to do that for a while. WilyD (talk) 12:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Question - page size

Thanks for the welcome.

What's the ideal page size. I'm adding stuff that's working out about 1.5 MB at the momen, which seems a bit big - so I want to split it up. But what's the average size supposed to be for pages if the total source text is about 35MB ?

Newman Luke (talk) 13:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

User:I-210

This page, which you created, has been overwritten with a request for speedy deletion. I'll leave it to you to deal with. Hesperian 11:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

User is blocked, so I have reverted to that page so we do know the history of a problematic situation. That the user doesn't like it is unfortunate. If that is not the preferred means, and it should be deleted then the indication that it should be otherwise, is fine with me. -- billinghurst (talk) 12:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you semi my talk page? The IP who posted is I-210. --Rschen7754 (talk) 06:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Gooooooooooooood luck. -- ab

Anchors

Thanks! That'll make things a bit easier. - Htonl (talk) 04:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

thanks

i will try multicol. thanks for the info.

I discovered that i didnt really want columns, i wanted a table.. but not even that, i wanted a template for indented dialogue... so i made a little basic one... it is at Template:Dialogue indented, i would appreciate any comments and suggestions. thank you Decora (talk) 20:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Okie dokie. We do have some bits around Template:Cquote, Template:Indent and other bits at Category:Formatting templates, if it is different it would be great to have it neatly documented and added to that list. We are pretty %^%$ at neatly documenting our available templates. :-/ -- billinghurst (talk) 23:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

thank you for pointing out the 'Formatting templates' category. 'Dialogue indented' is very different from cquote and indent, so i added it to that category list. thanks again.

Chekhov's disambiguations

When you rename pages to create disambiguation, please, alter iwiki in Russian orignal. -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 13:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I was hoping that the Russian original would be pointing to the page with the translations listing, though I will think to double check.

The Father of a Family and The Head of the Family is two translations of ru:Отец семейства (Чехов). Is needed to create disambiguation page in such case? -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 13:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw that you had done that one, and I am unsure exactly what to do with the two titles, so I put off making a decision. Which title do you think takes precedence. -- billinghurst (talk) 12:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

You forgot set a question-mark in last sentence, i guess. ;-) "The Father of a Family" is a literal translation of Russian "Отец семейства". There are another cases which i found:

• That Wretched Boy and A Naughty Boy is ru:Злой мальчик (Чехов)
• Volodia and Volodya is ru:Володя (Чехов)
• A Trifling Occurrence and A Trifle from Real Life is ru:Житейская мелочь (Чехов)

-- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 14:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like I did. :-/ From the latter three titles, which would be considered the literal translations? -- billinghurst (talk) 14:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It's complicated for me, so i ask User:Dmitrismirnov for a help. -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 15:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Your English is better than my Russian. Nyet? -- billinghurst (talk) 15:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think any of these titles are all right and doesn't matter what to choose. I did The Father of a Family disambiguation page. By the way, I prefer to call them like The Father of a Family (Chekhov/Fell) and The Head of the Family (Chekhov/Garnett) unlikely to what you did Ionitch (Chekhov-Fell) or Ionitch (Chekhov-Garnett). Regards! --Dmitrismirnov (talk) 16:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay. The nomenclature I used was what was existing for others in place, though I am as happy with your variation. It has not been documented previously that I can see.

What are your thoughts on the three pairs of works that Sergey identifies above? -- billinghurst (talk) 16:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

You can choose any of these, it is difficult to say which are better, but I would prefer probably A Naughty Boy , Volodya and A Trifle from Real Life - they sound a bit more elegant. I do not like this nomenclature (Chekhov-Garnett) because it looks like a double-name of one person like Rimsky-Korsakov. (Chekhov/Garnett) shows that there are two completely different people. Regards! --Dmitrismirnov (talk) 17:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I've just added a disambiguation page for:

• A Naughty Boy (Chekhov/Fell) — the story by Anton Chekhov translated by Marian Fell
• That Wretched Boy (Chekhov/Murry) — the story by Anton Chekhov translated by John Middleton Murry. Regards! -- Dmitrismirnov (talk) 07:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Cato the Elder

Ach, shows what I know, eh? :D Suppose I should stick to editing w: :) It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 13:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Quick! No, definitely not, you are very welcome here. I was about to put a note on your page with an explanation. The main namespace is for works, though we have also talked about a means to disambiguate between a work about an author, and the author page. It is one of our hurdles. -- billinghurst (talk) 13:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Basic Information on the Stimulus Payments

Hi. I am nominating the page Basic Information on the Stimulus Payments for deletion with my reasoning and discussion at WS:PD. As you have contributed to the page, I thought that I would give you a heads up to the discussion. -- billinghurst (talk) 10:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Please put it in my userspace so i can slurp it off onto a different wiki. Thanks.

Special:AbuseFilter

Done! I'm not entirely sure why we need so many header filters, but I guess I'll get around to cleaning them up later. Jude (talk) 01:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia Britannica 1911

Hello, Billinghurst,

How are you doing? I was thinking about beginning a new project on Wikisource PT by translating the entries of Encyclopaedia Britannica 1911 into Portuguese, but I am not sure if this work is protected against translations. Can you help me with this information?

Thank you so much! Best regards, Manoel Fernández^Msg 15:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The 1911 book is considered out of copyright, so as long as the translations that are being undertaken are not covered by copyright, then it would seem to me to be okay. If you are using our text, then it is definitely freely available. -- billinghurst (talk) 15:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Billinghurst! Manoel Fernández^Msg 15:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

There are a few pages that have been translated partially into Korean. ko:브리태니커 백과사전 제11판 리스트, and one page was translated into Russian, but I cant find it. I think it was quite a good translation. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank u

For your welcome :=) --Anne97432 (talk) 07:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: The Jumblies

Thanks for moving it here! I have a bit of a soft spot for this poem, since it's been on my user page at Wikipedia since 2005. :) - EurekaLott (talk) 14:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Author:David Playfair HEATLEY

Is it safe to assume that the surname in all capitals is an erroneous carryover from genealogical practice? Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 07:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no. It was due to not noticing the upper case during a previous move. Expanded D. P. HEATLEY by expanding the personal names and not the case of the surname. Fixed it now, have soft redirect in place and thanks for the heads up. -- billinghurst (talk) 08:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Propaganda

I don't know anything about Propaganda, as well as putting it in Category:1928 works there was also some minor formatting that I did on it. Kathleen.wright5 12:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I've run the more complete analysis at User talk:Ansicpl and Propaganda, but barring something unusual, it's still under copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the Welcome!

Do you think I should print out the PDF of the committee and then go through it to add all the original material? Capitalismojo (talk) 14:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

If you have the PDF, my questions become ...

• Is it OCR'd?
  • If not, we could look to do it
• Feel comfortable converting it to DjVu file?
  • If not, feel comfortable asking for help?

We would upload the DjVu image to commons, pull it over, extract the text, and use the Proofreading facility to get it in place. -- billinghurst (talk) 14:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

This is great!

Yes, The PDFs are at the article.

• No, it doesn't look like it has been OCR'd.
  • Excellent!

• I don't have that capability myself, I'm willing to learn or try. I'd love to see the text made complete.

• • Sure I'd love help. How do we start? - Capitalismojo (talk) 14:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• How many pages in the doc?
• How big a PDF file? What would it be like to email?

-- billinghurst (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Here are the links to the PDF. HUAC 1HUAC2 HUAC3 from the wikisource article. I am not sure how large they are. I would gues over 100 pages total from all three PDFs. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have agreed to volunteer to complete the text. I'll first read the DjVu file and work from there. If its alright, could I come ask your advice if I get stuck? Capitalismojo (talk) 22:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

A glutton for punishment? Not only completing the text, but asking help from me. I would be delighted. I have downloaded the files; will OCR; convert to DJVU; upload and create the Index: page. I will have to get a colleague to rip the text with his bot. All that may take a day or two.-- billinghurst (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note

Thanks for the welcome note. I was actually about to add a link on the Eisenhower page, but I had second thoughts about the title of the article. I wanted to see if I could fix that first. In Wikipedia you can change the name by a "move," but there seems to be no such option here on Wikisource. I was also wondering if there are any standard formats for naming such pages, in this case for famous speeches.

Sweet. Move functionality turns on when you become Autoconfirmed and it takes several days. There is no specific nomenclature for speeches. I had no major problem with the naming that you had, the only thing that I would have done differently is to have dropped the word 'Eisenhower' as it has a smidgeon of redundancy with our mandated {{header}} or appearing on an author page. There is some guidance for completion of the template.

Also, is there a way to cite the source used for this page? In this case there are several variants (see [2], and [3]). Of these, I believe the first is closer to the original text and format while the second has been edited more. I meant to use the first with only typographical corrections (missing spaces and diacritical marks), but it looks like I used the other one (I'll fix that now). NPguy (talk) 07:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

We do have a number of Citation templates. As many of works come in variations, we specifically cite the source that we used, and often mention that there are variations, sometimes replicate multiple version and disambiguate, or some show the versions on the same page. I cite in the Notes section. What we have been trying to focus upon recently is getting images of the works, and uploading to Commons, and then having both. We have tools that allow us to look at the text especially when it is a DjVu format, and we transclude from the file into the main namespace. -- billinghurst (talk) 09:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:Sarah Palin

I see that you deleted Category:Sarah Palin because it is redundant. What is the other category that I should use? --rogerd (talk) 23:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Charter for a World...

Hi. I've checked with the Permanent Secretary and they say there is no formal copyright over the Charter. In any case, they are happy to realease under Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0. --Cgnk (talk) 10:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Two works

I am pretty sure those works are in the public domain, as the apology was a governmental speech, and the audio tape has been released to the public, with a judge giving the newspapers in question the right to publish the transcript. I am relatively new to this site, so I currently lack the knowledge to put up the correct templates. (Iuio (talk) 21:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC))

I'm afraid that I'm not very familar with Canadian copyright laws, and I am trying to dtermine if the works would be considered public domain in the U.S. Can I ask for your help in this matter? (Iuio (talk) 10:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC))

Critique of Judgement

Billinghurst, this is an unfinished work, and the individual seems to be doing work to help complete it. Were you aware it was unfinished, or do you see a different problem with the work? ResScholar (talk) 04:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I discovered the problem you described 40 seconds before the description arrived on my user page. Yes, you can leave it to me. Thank you. ResScholar (talk) 04:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion

Hi, could you please delete the article On The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies (1920 edition). I overlooked the fact that the book, where I took the article from, was reprinted in 2007. --D.H (talk) 07:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

That it was reprinted in 2007 should be by-the-by, as long our text is from the original. They reprint on the same copyright terms that we do. They would only have copyright to their formatting, not the original words. They would only have copyright to any text that they introduced into the reprint, eg. a new foreword, etc.-- billinghurst (talk) 07:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

See the description on this site. I'm not sure, if this causes problems for Wikisource (PD-60 in India - and M. Saha died in 1956.). --D.H (talk) 07:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

If the translation took place prior to 1923, then we are okay, as I understand it. -- billinghurst (talk) 07:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I restored the text. Thanks. --D.H (talk) 07:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the Welcome Note

Thanks for the kind welcome note. I was trying to fix a broken link on the Letter to George W. Bush from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The note at the bottom said that although copyrighted in Iran, the copyright was not recognized in the US and gave a reference to Circular 38a. Clicking on the link takes you to a broken link page in the US Copyright site. The circular exists, but apparently has been moved.

Shouldn't references have more content to them so that a user can find the reference even if the web site has been changed? After all, the note was referencing a document not a web page. The web page was simply one location of the document. Using the web page as the primary reference is like referencing a book by citing the shelf on which it sits in the library! The standard reference template in the 'pedia results in a footnote with much more detail, provided the author bothers to input a complete reference.

I couldn't find any method of forwarding my comment to the appropriate person; that is, until your email showed up. I guess I need to spend some time rummaging around the site. But, give me a hint: where are the fundamental rules of engagement that I should know before wondering into fray?

Finally, This is a wonderful project. My complements to all those who are participating. I hope to find a document that I am passionate about to input.

Stephreg

User:Martin H.

You put a block notice on User:Martin H., but I noticed he wasn't actually blocked.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Sheesh, I did too, mistakenly, and he isn't blocked as there is no reason to block. I have obviously clicked the wrong link. <sigh> Thanks. -- billinghurst (talk) 12:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

QUESTIONS

I am working on placing several books on WikiSource but I am new here. Therefore, I ask the following -- are the texts proofed by others once I have completed them? Are any images allowed to be included in the text? Are the books printed and sold by WikiPrint (or whatever)? Can I get help on a Table mixed in with ascii? -- or can I upload the image and include that with the plain vanilla text?

Thank you, Brother Officer (talk) 00:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Welcome again, nice to have you about and active.

• Your first proof would be considered the first proof. Others can come along and validate.
• Images: personal choice and partly depends on your wish on how closely to replicate the work. If transcluded work and there is an image in the work, we would generally look to replicate the images. If not transcluded, well ... whatever can be in context. [Images we upload to Commons, and I did a few with the recent work Index:Omnibuses and Cabs.djvu. If you think that is reasonable, and represents the work, that is usually our measure.
• Sure you can get help with tables. I know the basics, though am no expert. We can dig out help as needed.
• Not aware of any specific business, however, my understanding of the terms of putting works at WS is that anyone can print and even sell them if they so wished.

billinghurst (talk) 00:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Billinghurst, you wrote on my talk page, "It is complete (which is probably a better word) as a text, which is what I was meaning, so can go to the front page." I thank you but how does one place a book on the "front page" and where is the "front page"? I don't think you mean the "Main Page" and in any case I don't know how to move a book. Learning day by day Brother Officer (talk) 04:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Frank Spencer's lullaby

I don't understand why this was deleted. I had the lyrics on wikipedia, and was told that it was a copyright violation, and that if I obtained permission, I should put it on wikisource. So, I contact the BBC, who say they are not the copyright holder, but that Raymond Allen is. I contact him, he gives me permission to put it on here (along with his own reference for this permission), and still it's deleted? I'm not sure how it is outside Wikisource's scope?

What exactly do I need to do to get the lyrics on wikipedia, as I have permission from the copyright owner to do so?—unsigned comment by Phantomsteve (talk) .

I will have a look, but not tonight. Brain is mush. -- billinghurst (talk) 13:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I will get a scan of the letter - unfortunately, I'm at my partner's house (where my scanner is) - but the letter is at home! I'll scan it next weekend when I'm next here! Thanks 94.169.168.242 15:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Important that we do, not dire urgent for now. If we can aim for the next couple of weeks, or thereabouts, that should be fine. -- billinghurst (talk) 23:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping! The letter gives a general permission to use the lyrics on wikipedia, but the wording is not sufficient for the CCA-SA3 to hold. To be honest, as the lyrics do not add to the episode in question (other than establishing the closeness between Frank and his daughter, which is already a given), I'm not going to bother Mr Allen with the CCA-SA3 permission! Thanks for the interest and comments, and sorry to have wasted your time 82.43.69.66 19:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

User:Fandalbot, probable returning vandal. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Once more. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Vandal again

User:Fandal - A New Beginning. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks like a cross wiki vandal. Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Award :)

Thanks for adding the proofread of the month box to my page. I just now noticed (slow, I know). It was my pleasure to be of help. --Xxagile (talk) 05:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Here or at Wikipedia

I started an account here today and Added material to Lincoln and Liberty, I also wrote a new article at Wikipedia about the ballard, Coast of High Barbary. Whic wiki is better for this type of material? Does it matter if the same material is in both? Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Gday PC. WS is about replicating the original source (as long as it is not under copyright). So the ballad would belong here with the source quoted (as a minimum) or ideally with a copy of the source uploaded to Commons and then linked to in our Page: namespace, eg. works at WS:PotM. In the notes field there may be a limited description, and links to WP, which would have the encyclopaedic information. The guidance to what to put where is: WS = replica, WP = encyclopaedia.

In circumstances where source materials differ, then we would show both variations and have a page that disambiguated between the versions. Something like name Version (1785), and Version (1820), both linked from the disambiguation page Version.

Hope that helps. -- billinghurst (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The trouble is the first section of Coast of High Barbary is encyclopedic while the rest is copied an splitting between the two would leave a small stub at Wikipedia. I've copied it here and more experienced users will have to decide what to do. Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

K, tomorrow after a sleep and with some sanity restored. billinghurst (talk)

I have set the verses, and made amendments to WP page -- billinghurst (talk)

A Life on the Ocean Wave is on Wikipedia as is We're Going to Hang out the Washing on the Siegfried Line so Wikipedia looks OK. Proxima Centauri (talk) 19:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I will put the appropriate templates on these pages to mark them for transfer.

Question

Sir, How do I conceal the w -- after I make a link to an article on Wikipedia from WikiSource?

i.e. w:pueblo will link from WikiSource to WikiPedia link but the w.pueblo is shown in the link. Kind regards, —Brother Officer^Talk 19:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

You pipe it away so the result becomes pueblo, there is a wiki shorthand method to utilise and that is [[w:pueblo|]]

Similarly the shorthand works nicely for other components

1. [[Author:Charles John Huffam Dickens|]] gives Charles Dickens
2. [[wikt:pueblo|]] gives pueblo
3. [[Bowes, Elizabeth (DNB00)|]] gives Bowes, Elizabeth

There is an explanation of the functionality at w:Help:Piped link though one has to test here as our broader naming convention can sometimes give unexpected results. -- billinghurst (talk) 22:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• [[wikt:pueblo|]] gives pueblo

Thank you, —Brother Officer^Talk 23:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

OCR button

Hello,

The ocr button is now enabled by default. you'll need to update your preferences as it's been disabled for you. sorry for the inconvenience. ThomasV (talk) 18:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

A few clicks extra in the day is hardly an inconvenience. Thanks TV, you do great work and very considerate. -- billinghurst (talk) 21:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Indentation

If we use the indent command how many characters (spaces) should that indent number be?

Thank you, —Brother Officer^Talk 04:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Umm, I not certain exactly to what you are referring, so I will address in a number of way

• if you are talking : character, I am not certain, though hazarding a guess that it is based on an w:Em (typography) measure, and it looks to be about 2em.
• if you are using the <poem> tag, then what looks best for the work.
• if you are talking what is defined in the Common.css file, it is 2em.

-- billinghurst (talk) 04:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

My understanding of "character" is every space including a blank space. I was asking about the standard paragraph indentation using {{indent|number}}; i.e {{indent|6}} —Brother Officer^Talk 04:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that we no longer use the template, as per its note. For much of what I am doing, I use our set class <div class=lefttext> or sometimes <div style="padding-left: 2em; text-indent: -2em"> -- billinghurst (talk) 05:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Would you please show me an _example_ of how a sentence or paragraph is indented. The old {{indent|number}}I understand and I gave an example. But I do not understand how to use what you show above and no example is shown on the Template page. Also, I am working on a book and there is no poetry in it. I want to indent as in "Tab" x# spaces —Brother Officer^Talk 21:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The History of CRGS

First off, thank you for your help with this! It's a novel feeling, being a newbie again, and I'm glad to have had the assistance with everything. Everyone on IRC has been really helpful.

Very welcome. I so work on the principle of what goes around, comes around.

Next, a couple of quick questions for you, arising from your nice edits to some of the various pages I created:

1. Linebreaks. I can whizz through with AWB getting rid of all of these (they were only there because of the OCR) if that's what you do. Just give the nod. Would that be best?

When transcluded they can be problematic, so as I proofread a line I just remove then, often more to know where I am up to. Definitely leave a space at the end of the line at the end of page, and look to utilise {{blank line}} when a continuing page starts with a new paragraph.

1. General formatting. I pretty much made it up as I went along. Does Wikisource have a manual of style for these things? If you encounter any issues with the way I have chosen to format things in future, I'd love to know. Best to get into good habits ASAP I always think.

We are a little recalcitrant beyond Wikisource:Style guide and H:Side. Often we try to replicate the look of the book, though we leave that to the editor's discretion. Sometimes we do display a little different between the Page: namespace, and the text transcluded into the main namespace, as what is right in a book, may not be on a computer screen. <poem> tag is very useful, and used far more widely than in just poetry.

1. Links. Is any sort of in-text linking appropriate? I was thinking, "See page 3", perhaps, or some such.

Ah, there goes me last year. The answer was "It is a wiki, this is our advantage" so I do much in the way of [[w:yaddada|]] [[wikt:yaddada|]] [[Author:yaddada|]] [[Wikisource:yaddada|]], and I aim to wikilink book titles. Also we have {{anchor}} to allow quick internal links, especially when working with subpages.

(Follow-up response). Found one of the references, and see above about the clever use of #switch function that we could use to have neat refs in both namespaces. billinghurst (talk)

That's quite enough to be going on with, but anyhow, thanks for your hard work, it's appreciated :) . Jarry1250 (talk) 18:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I should do some better help pages, however, I just never get round to it. <shrug> Very happy to try to help. Plus I will try to get in and assist in the validation, just may not be this week. -- billinghurst (talk) 00:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Delete accidental edit

Hi, can you please delete this edit I made without logging in? I'd rather my IP was not displayed. Thanks --Snowolfd4 (talk) 13:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC) Done though I had to go a round about way to manage it. -- billinghurst (talk) 13:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --Snowolfd4 (talk) 01:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Template gap or typo?

Template:DNB JAD was the one I needed just now. Is this a missing person? Charles Matthews (talk) 17:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

'Omission' or 'yet to be'. We had found that the contributor compilation that we had been using had mistakes and omissions, so the person who was creating the templates started in volume order. So either we hadn't got to that volume, or it was missed when done.

I have created the missing template. -- billinghurst (talk) 22:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

W. R. W.

was another one. I have started a rough page in this case. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Gave it another beat into shape, and when I get through current tasks, I will be back building author pages. -- billinghurst (talk) 15:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

DNB - where will the supplements go?

First time this has come up for me. An article I had in mind to create is in one of the three supplement volumes published in 1901. As far as I know there is no infrastructure for these articles, which (I suppose) shouldn't be "DNB00"? Charles Matthews (talk) 19:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

There is stuff existing. From poking around, I have found Template:DNB01. Probably worth the discussion being on Wikisource talk:WikiProject DNB as it is that time for it to take place. I think that I have located and uploaded the beasts, but I don't remember at this time. -- billinghurst (talk) 01:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

this one is for you

User talk:John Vandenberg#A Tale of Two Ballantynes looks like your cup of tea. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Danforth report files questions

Thanks for moving the main ones over. A few questions:

• Do you question the copy rights of all the appendixes or only the ones that explicitly say something about copyright?

I haven't formed an opinion. Those that were clearly {{PD-USGov}} I started to label and move. Copyright is evaluated per document/work, and that it is an appendix to a US govt report does not override a pre-existing copyright provision if it isn't a work of the US Government or the criteria that applies in the legislation.

• Assuming there isn't a problem with the ones that don't have an explicit copyright, I should just upload again from my hard drive or is there a faster way to transfer them over??

I used an existing and available tool to copy from Wikisource to Commons. For those files that are uploaded, we can transfer with relative ease, and a lot better than uploading again.

• I assume you did not create a Danforth report category at commons and will do so unless I hear differently. Or should I just leave up the one at wikisource?? Or delete that entirely?

Thanks. Carolmooredc (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Not done so, and it wasn't my priority (yet). As I am not an admin on Commons, I cannot straight import, so that would need to be done by old fashioned means.

-- billinghurst (talk) 21:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll create tomorrow and upload what I think will pass copyright muster, or can argue should. :=) Carolmooredc (talk) 00:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

We should solve the copyright issues of the docs first and apply the notices there, and then we can transfer as required. Great that you will set up the category on Commons. We can leave the category intact at WS for the moment as it is not redundant at this point.-- billinghurst (talk) 00:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

links within

I like the way Omnibuses and Cabs turned out, the bit I read was interesting. I was thinking of adding links from List of Illustrations, using the Page: link as the target. Then I noticed that the images had been moved, presumably to neaten the presentation in main space. Shall I go ahead and link, for example, "A Knife-board Omnibus ... 65" with Chapter VI#64 or by some other means. Cygnis insignis (talk) 11:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice. As the numbers are hidden, that is okay with me, so shouldn't confuse.

In Page namespace the illustrations should be on their original page as I went to having two refs to each, the original in place with noinclude code, and other at the end of a paragraph with includeonly code. I will go back and double check that is what I did with all of them. Someone did undo some of the include text, and I haven't got back there. I think that I absolutely cheated with a couple of images, so we may need to go back and do some double check there too.

On a similar another point, I had been meaning to go back and look to use #switch to see if I could have both in the relevant namespaces. I think I have it, did one on the page like ...

{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}|Page=[[Page:Omnibuses and Cabs.djvu/33|13]]|[[Omnibuses and Cabs/Part I/Chapter II|13]]}}

Though with your modification that would probably be

{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}|Page=[[Page:Omnibuses and Cabs.djvu/33|13]]|[[Omnibuses and Cabs/Part I/Chapter II#13|13]]}} -- billinghurst (talk) 12:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean to suggest a link to Page:space, if that is the purpose of the above, just utilising the num = "name". This is how this List of Illustrations and the notes to each were resolved. Cygnis insignis (talk) 12:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Understand, though I was trying to avoid way that the relative links don't show up neatly in Page namespace. I have implemented your idea, and added the alternate coding so it links nicely whether it is in the main NS at Page:Omnibuses and Cabs.djvu/20 or at Omnibuses and Cabs/List of Illustrations. I haven't check all the links, it will need to wait until tomorrow night, or the night after. -- billinghurst (talk) 13:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Neat! I see what it supposed to do now, and how that could be useful for other links. Cygnis insignis (talk) 14:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm new here

Hi, I'm new here. I just created Montreux Convention, and I was wondering whether it is acceptable in terms of copyright, style, etc.. Cheers.--Doron (talk) 12:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Again welcome ... I have been played. Question about who may have undertaken the translation, we should add that detail if known, and add the specific licence at the bottom. Also, we can add it to Wikisource:League of Nations. -- billinghurst (talk) 12:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the document belongs to the League of Nations, and I think this is an official translation from 1936. This is a treaty only between the 10 signatory parties.--Doron (talk) 23:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Okie dokie. I misunderstood the text in the notes then, so please try and find something better for the author line. You could try something like "Governments of A, B, C, ..." If an official translation, then we can either be specific, or utilise "Not known" and use the copyright tag {{PD-GovEdict}} as required. -- billinghurst (talk) 00:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Article Questions

Hey Billinghurst, thanks for the welcome :)

Hey I have a couple of questions about an article that I translated:

• The Spanish version from which I translated looks nicer, but the css classes that the original author used don't show up in my dropdown in the English version. Is there a way I can create a template that indents the first line of a paragraph? Even better, is there a standard tag or template for this? If you have any other suggestions for how I could improve the layout please let me know.

We do have a couple <div class=lefttext> or <div class=prose> which could be used. Also for some classical translations, we have seen where original and translations versions in situ, put side by side. If you still want to keep the wider width, then I can dig up some code, I know from where to steal the right code.

I think that lefttext is almost what I want, but it's a bit too thin. I'd like something that has the same first-line indent as lefttext, but takes up about 80% of the page width.

I have just applied an 80% width, see how you like it, we can put in a specific number of ems, it was about 33em.

• I included a copyright notice saying I release my work to the public domain. Given that the original is an open letter, and therefore already in the public domain, is it necessary for me to include my own copyright as well?

We use {{translation licence}}, and apply as {{translation licence|original={{PD-manifesto}}|translation={{PD-self}}}}

Ok yep that's what I did

• The author page for Rodolfo Walsh doesn't exist in WikiSource but does in wikipedia. Should I create a stub page in WikiSource and link it to wikipedia, or is there a way of linking directly from the wikisource header template to wikipedia?

I have created Author:Rodolfo Walsh, though you will assuredly want to add to it. We do have some guidance on author page in the WS:MOS

Thanks! Ok the guidelines make sense, although they don't mention what to do in the situation where a wikipedia entry already exists for the author - I assume we want to write a stub and then link to wikipedia rather than copying it to wikisource.

Ah, that guidance is at Template:Author. I did a brief swipe from WP, though if we add more text, we would generally use {{wikipediaref}} at the end of the text in the Description field. Might also be worth running your eye over Wikisource:Translations -- billinghurst (talk) 13:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Dirk—unsigned comment by MockDuck (talk) .

Very welcome. -- billinghurst (talk) 03:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply! 190.2.44.65 13:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

new index

I hope I'm wrong, but we have problem Cygnis insignis (talk) 11:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Just with a dodgy 3 looking 5-ish. The penultimate page is 1342, so we are okay. [Phew, it took ages to upload!] -- billinghurst (talk) 12:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I should have apologised for this little waste of time, and checked it more carefully before posting; I was doing stuff in the RW at the same time. I'll make up for that by filling your page with the following blather. Following on from your recent comments, which are always useful and welcome (anywhere:), 1. I found the 'welcome' template by typing that, but felt like I may be overwhelming a new user with information. I like the simple layout and reckoned it would be more familiar to Users from the sister sites. I would suggest a rewording too, if I felt more strongly about it. However, I've thought it through again, and the links you mention would be useful ways to get involved, so I will use {{Welcome}} from now on. 2. That anchor template is a good idea, as are the formatting ones are. This is the opinion of someone who barely understands these things, I imagine and hope that others will find easier to edit as well. I don't imagine I would need to recite the advantages, but has anyone pointed out what the disadvantages might be? 3. It was an interesting discussion you raised on Crockfords, I had some other examples that concern authors, non-authors and so forth; as it was I appeared to have contributed to a digression from that subject. Apologies for that too. Regards, Cygnis insignis (talk) 11:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Abso-bloody-lutely no reason to apologise. It was a fair question.
2. Disadvantages? None of which I am aware, though that doesn't mean much. There can be issues in the Page: namespace with anchors and paths.
3. Hey, WS:S is a constant morphing of discussion. I am good at the conversations, just not at writing them up into sensible guidance. plus See 1. <shrug> -- billinghurst (talk) 11:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll take that as a gilt-edged invitation to waffle on :) Speaking of page: namespace problems, I'm having problems with the formatting of poems. The trivial concern of line spacing is more noticeable with these, using <poem> or ":" indents, and if I ever knew how to control this I've forgotten now. Hiding tags in the header/footer doesn't seem to work, that was my best guess. Cygnis insignis (talk) 12:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

My brain is slowing, and not my area of specialty. Jack Merridew (talk • contribs) is more around this stuff than I. From my simple perspective <poem> just allows you to indent text from the left Help:Editing poetry and has a normal line spacing. (:) indents a standard amount, and has an increased line spacing, my guess would be 1.2x line spacing. -- billinghurst (talk) 12:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll ask him, ta. Cygnis insignis (talk) 12:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Text: Full Justification

Billinghurst,

I was reading http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_American_Practical_Navigator/Chapter_1 and noticed that the text is in "full justification" which I prefer. It does not have code such as => p align="justify".

It appears to be ascii but how would anyone create those pages when not using any code and yet get full justification on the pages? I wish to do the same.

Thank you, —Brother Officer^Talk 01:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Formatting at WS is through CSS templates. (Note CSS is not an expertise of mine) Non-logged in users get the default, and logged in users get to chose through their "my preferences". I believe that the monobook.css is the default, and you can see it and many others defined in MediaWiki:Common.css.

Generally here in the wiki, we do not try to over engineer how pages are laid out, nor impose a specific formatting as you indicated above, and hence allow each user to use the style that suits them. So for a fuller explanation of how you can set your style, try w:Help:User style. For the pages here, don't feel that you need to overly impose a stylistic representation or overly format, unless there is a specific need to a page in a certain means. -- billinghurst (talk)

What's the right way to . . .

Hello,

I was just wondering what's the right way to ask to delete a bunch of now redundant pages

• Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009
• Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009/Division J
• Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009/Division I
• Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009/Division H
• Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009/Division G
• Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009/Division F
• Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009/Division E
• Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009/Division D
• Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009/Division C
• Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009/Division B
• Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009/Division A
• Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009/Division F/Title I
• Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009/Division F/Title II
• Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009/Division F/Title III
• Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009/Division F/Title IV
• Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009/Division F/Title V
• Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009/Division F/Title VI

... now that they've been re-created (and re-formatted) under Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 properly??? Thanks. George Orwell III (talk) 01:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Generally you can tag with Speedy Delete, with a reason, like {{sdelete|Redundant pages, editor request}}, or like this you can just ask someone to delete. -- billinghurst (talk) 02:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank You. I've done sdelete with a page here or a page there but never a whole series like that and just wanted to be sure. Thanks again. George Orwell III (talk) 02:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Done -- billinghurst (talk)

Meant to say, that if you are not sure, there is always the {{delete}} template and the WS:PD page. billinghurst (talk) 03:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Amazing

Billinghurst,

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Author:William_Lewis_Herndon.

I thank you for all of the help you have given to me with the most recent being the above.

You are an incredible knowledgable worker who does an incredible amount of work for others and for Wiki areas. You are the only "Administrator" that I have ever communicated with and had so much help from. You are not only helpful but you also are polite. I know you know this and more and I am aware others know it but I want you to know that on a personal level that I sincerely admire and respect what you do. Gads, imagine what WikiPedia and WikiSource would be like without the likes oof you and other administrators whom I don't know. There would be far too much chaos and confusion and a lot less work accomplished. I do wish that I had your knowledge and expertise. I suppose there is envy in that on my part but a friendly and admiring envy. I write this so that you will be reminded that you are not taken for granted as a worker and highly dedicated person.

Respectfully, —Brother Officer^Talk 18:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

That is very nice of you [[File:Smiley-Dancing.gif|15px]]. Help is hopefully a chain reaction. I give it to you, you give it to someone else, ... In that way help is also like knowledge. -- billinghurst (talk) 06:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

redundant

Echoing format: Hello hello Billinghurst billinghurst

1. On Author pages there is, as you know, a rectangle at the top right of the page that states "See biography" being a link to a Wikipedia article on the author.
2. To that is added yet another link to the same material on Wikipedia stating, "--Excerpted from <author & link> on Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia."
3. Why is that a necessity on "Author" pages? It seems redundant and is annoying because they both take a reader back to the same author and article on Wikipedia

—Brother Officer^Talk 00:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It isn't necessary, it is an attribution. When a major slab of text is taken from WP (or any source for that matter), then we acknowledge the source. -- billinghurst (talk) 09:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• In this article, http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Author:William_Lewis_Herndon, I took no "slab of text" from anywhere including the article on Wikipedia that I contributed to. I simply wrote from what I know - and have known about for decades, even before the Columbus Discovery Group of Ohio contacted me to see if I intended to "lay claim" on any gold that they found with the sidewheel steamer Central America. Still, I understand your point -- you may not have been aware that I rewrote the text you placed there to be more accurate with history. Again, I took no slab of text, -- nothing -- from Wikipedia. I also uploaded the image. I know the full story which is why I have been working on it in Wikipedia and now Wikisource. Back to work for us and I thank you for your reply, —Brother Officer^Talk

You asked me a generic question about when we use the template, not about a specific example. I cannot remember the specific sequence, though believe that I added it when I created Author:William Lewis Herndon. I know that I did an undo, though that was related to other aspects, not around the use or non-use of the template. billinghurst (talk) 10:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did ask a generic question because the situations I mentioned on Authors are all alike. Yes, I did try to add a 2nd image on the Author page while not knowing at the time I wasn't allowed to -- which is okay. Herndon is known for two major things, his exploration of the valley of the Amazon and his bravery in going down to sea with his ship after saving all women, children, and some of the men. I tried to show both of those situations with the standard image of the author and then with the image of the SS Central America which brought him fame for the 2nd and last time. My thoughts were to show both things that made him famous by adding one image aside from the image of him as an author. Good images have impact and often make pages look far more interesting. Anyway, it's all moot now.—Brother Officer^Talk 12:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Huh? The image is still on the page. billinghurst (talk) 12:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I know the image is on the page and I sincerely do thank you. I meant I now understand what you wrote regarding what you removed and that there is no longer any reason for this discussion <friendly smile & handshake> so it is "back to work for the both of us" lest we be stuck on this explanation for too long. Sincerely, —Brother Officer^Talk 14:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

"ADDED PROFANITY"

Billingshurst, here http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Brother_Officer you see contributions to WikiSource and here is added words I never placed there in bold letters for this question:--

"15:31, 12 August 2009 (hist) (diff) Nm Exploration of the Valley of the Amazon vol.2 by Lt. Lardner Gibbon/5 ? (?Chapter V.: (partial)) (top) (added profanity)

What is this and who would be able to change the text I had already saved in the Log (not the body text) but the Log where it shows time, date, and "Chapter V.: (partial) ?

I was not aware that anyone other than someone like an Administrator could make such a change in that manner. While I was once in the military and did use profanities like others, I am strongly opposed to useless profanities and do not use them in speech nor in writing.

Who could have the authority to change what I had by adding "(added profanity)" in my original "save"? Did you do that? Can you see who did? They should be punished. Since someone with the knowledge and authority did this can and will you please remove it?

There is always someone wanting to destroy which is easily done but to be constructive is far more what all of "Wiki" areas should be about.

Thank you, —Brother Officer^Talk 05:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Nothing to worry about. This tags attempts at vandalism, and here it hit the term Poopo as like Poop. It simply allows us to check a page more easily. Where a known user comes up in the filters, we can investigate if we think it worthwhile. On this occasion, we wouldn't even give it a second glance. -- billinghurst (talk) 11:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Movie Magazines

I have some 1916 movie fan magazines. Is everything in them fair game, including the ads? Williamb (talk) 13:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I would think so. If no author then tag {{PD-anon-1923|1916}}. If author, you can use {{PD-1923}} or if the author's year of death is known then {{pd/1923|YYYY}} billinghurst (talk)

Import log Fubar

• Template:Para 7 revisions
• Template:Documentation 122 revisions
• Template:Documentation/docname 9 revisions
• Template:Documentation subpage 113 revisions
• Template:Para/doc 19 revisions
• Template:Pp-meta 80 revisions
• Template:Pp-template 50 revisions
• Template:Purge 30 revisions
• Template:Tlx 66 revisions

billinghurst (talk) 23:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC) (from yesterday)

re: I have lightly fubar'd, need advice

Hi J. I need someone with some greater wiki expertise. I was importing a template, and it also imported and overwrote existing templates, (grrrr) which I didn't think would be possible, well, not automagically. When I look at the overwritten templates, there history has overwritten, and I cannot work out how to revert those templates to previous versions. Help! Thx and :-( billinghurst (talk) 11:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Ummm ... I've not encountered this before ;-)

Well, I've not seen it done with the "import" tool, however concurrent development of page content is a common problem, so a similar situation occurs when an admin does a "page merge".

To fix it "nicely", you need to split the history out.

w:Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves is the best help page I can find quickly.

Pathoschild is good at this. I can do it next week (bug me).

The quick/nasty solution is to delete the template, and then restore only the most recent "good" revision, and then someone else can worry about the proper fix later.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Problem is that I cannot determine the recent good version on some of these. Probably partly due to other imports of the same file, or possibly the complete overwrite of the history. Hard to sort of tell. Ugh. I will put a note to Pathoschild in case he lumbers out of the murk. -- billinghurst (talk) 15:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

John says that you have experience in cleaning up history fubars. If you have the time to have a look at this discussion, then that would be great. Thx. -- billinghurst (talk) 15:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I had already left a message. I had forgotten. For reference, the files that were imported at at User_talk:Billinghurst#Import log Fubar. Thanks for helping me out here. billinghurst (talk) 04:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Fixed.

• {{documentation/docname}}, {{para}}, {{Template:para/doc}}, {{pp-meta}}, {{pp-template}}, and {{purge}} had no history conflict, but I deleted them because they were unused. Feel free to restore any you need.
• {{documentation}}, {{documentation subpage}}, and {{tlx}} fixed.

I wrote a quick and dirty script to fix edit history merges; when run on the source's history page, it generates a script that will check/uncheck revisions when restoring the target's history. I'll paste it here for future reference, since I otherwise won't keep it around.

/*######################
## Generate a unique revision signature
######################*/
function gen_signature( li ) {
	/* extract data */
	var text = li.innerHTML; // parse string instead of DOM, much faster
	
	var date    = text.match( /\d+:\d+, \d+ [a-z]+ \d+/i )[0];
	var user    = text.match( /mw-userlink"[^>]*>([^<]+)<\/a>/i )[1];
	var comment = text.match( /comment"[^>]*>\((.+)\)<\/span>/i );
	
	/* flatten comment & strip HTML */
	if( comment )
		comment = comment[1].replace( /<[^>]+>([^\n]+?)<\/[^>]+>/ig, '$1' );
	else
		comment = '';
		
	/* return signature */
	return date.replace( /[^a-z0-9]/ig, '' ) + '|' + user.replace( /[^a-z0-9-]/ig, '' ) + '|' + comment.replace( /[^a-z0-9_-]/ig, '' );
}

/*######################
## On a history page, generate script to run on Special:Undelete
######################*/
function parse_history() {
	/* get history */
	var form    = document.getElementById( 'mw-history-compare' );
	var history = form.getElementsByTagName( 'li' );
	
	/* generate signatures */
	var signatures = [];
	for( var i = 0, len = history.length; i < len; i++ )
		signatures.push( gen_signature(history[i]) );
	
	/* build script */
	var script = '/*######################\n## Generate a unique revision signature\n######################*/\n'
		+ gen_signature + '\n\n'
		+ '/*######################\n## Bad revision signatures \n######################*/\n'
		+ 'var signatures = \'#' + signatures.join( '#' ) + '#\'\n\n'
		+ '/*######################\n## Toggle revisions \n######################*/\n'
		+ uncheck_bad_revisions	+ '\n'
		+ 'uncheck_bad_revisions();'
	
	/* output */
	pre = document.getElementById( 'fix-fubar-history' );
	if( !pre ) {
		var div = document.createElement( 'div' );
		div.setAttribute( 'style', 'padding:1em; border:1px solid #F00;' );
		
		var header = document.createElement( 'h3' );
		header.appendChild( document.createTextNode('Fix fubar history') );
		
		var text = document.createTextNode( 'Delete the imported page, then run the script below on its undelete page to check good revisions and uncheck bad ones.' );

		var pre = document.createElement( 'pre' );
		pre.setAttribute( 'id', 'fix-fubar-history' );
		
		div.appendChild( header );
		div.appendChild( text );
		div.appendChild( pre );
		form.insertBefore( div, form.childNodes[0] );
	}
	pre.innerHTML = script;
}
parse_history();


/*######################
## On undelete page, check/uncheck revisions based on signatures
######################*/
function uncheck_bad_revisions() {
	/* default reason */
	document.getElementById( 'wpComment' ).value = 'Fixed merged edit history';

	/* get history & offset to deletion log */
	var history = document.getElementById( 'undelete' ).getElementsByTagName( 'li' );
	var offset  = 0;
	while( history[offset].getAttribute('class') == 'mw-logline-delete' )
		offset++;
	
	/* (un)check boxes */
	var count = 0;
	for( var i = offset, len = history.length; i < len; i++ ) {
		if( signatures.indexOf('#' + gen_signature(history[i]) + '#') == -1 ) {
			history[i].getElementsByTagName('input')[0].checked = true;
			history[i].setAttribute( 'style', '' );
		}
		else {
			history[i].getElementsByTagName('input')[0].checked = false;
			history[i].setAttribute( 'style', 'background:#FCC;' );
			count++;
		}
	}
	
	alert( count + ' bad revisions.' );
}

—Pathoschild 17:58:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Index Pages

Can we categorize index pages? I think it would be easier if we knew which ones were validated, proofread, or not proofread. Example: Category:Index Proofread. Should I ask this on the Scriptorium as a community effort or can I start doing it on my own?--Xxagile (talk) 02:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice idea! You can start doing it yourself manually, especially with respect to the framework, and how it would work. I have found that going to the community with something solid to look at and review, often works better than just theoretical. It may also be worth putting the suggestion to ThomasV (talk • contribs) at Oldwikisource:Wikisource_talk:ProofreadPage to see what could be automated from the Index: page. -- billinghurst (talk) 02:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, Thanks. I'll get started on that.--Xxagile (talk) 02:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Trademarks

I proposed this, being that missing some reference about trademarks that can be cited o referenced. Is based on Wikipedia Disclaimer. You think that is Ok the text? regards Shooke (talk) 16:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Protection request

Haven't read up on policy here, but since all my documents are proofread, would you be able to protect them from all editing (sysop only)? Hopefully you can do that per a request and AGF that they are proofread, etc. I uploaded that djvu file for one of the documents, but don't plan on filling in the text to each page any time soon, nor do I plan to get the djvu files for the other documents in the near future either, since it's such a long process; these documents are here as primary sources for some work I'm doing on WP and must be reliable. The complete list is on my user page. Many thanks in advance and for the earlier help. UpstateNYer 00:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Policy and links at Wikisource:Protection policy. General guidance is that requests are made there so the documentation and history is maintained. We haven't tended to protect many pages as the vandalism rate has been quite low. -- billinghurst (talk) 11:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks for all the help. UpstateNYer 14:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Confusing Images

Billinghurst, (or someone) would you please take a look at this page [[4]] near the bottom and tell, or show, me why it is that one image shows while the other does not show? I want to have only one showing-- the one that doesn't show at this point. The other is where I tried a different image and that one shows. Thank you for any consideration. —Brother Officer^Talk 16:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure where the image is located. Wikisource? Wikipedia? Commons? Here is what I can find quickly at Commons -- billinghurst (talk) 17:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I found the image when reading here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orizaba It is located at the top right side of the page and is a perfect image for what I want. Those others on Commons I saw when looking for this one I point to now. I don't think this is on Commons but I wish all images were so it would be less confusing. We need a "bot" or whatever it may be called to do a mass copy of all wikipedia images to wiki commons. Naturally thse thoughts are from what little I know about the overall system. Thank you very much for looking. —Brother Officer^Talk 18:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

We can't bot all the pictures from Wikipedia to Commons for several reasons; the English Wikipedia accepts fair use images, and accepts images that are legal in the US but not in their home country.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

________________________________

So what am to I do, am I to download that image from Wikipedia and then upload it to Commons and then add information the original user posted? I know -- it seems strange to me too -- but it won't Link as it is. —Brother Officer^Talk 21:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's what has to be done.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

We will need to get the file moved over to Commons, though, it will need to be renamed in the process as ampersands are not a good character in a filename. I cannot do it at the moment, though maybe able to in the next little while. -- billinghurst (talk) 23:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both for your kindnes and help as what to do. It was easy copying that file to Commons that I feel must have done something wrong. It was far easier than uploading my own images to Wikipedia long ago. Here it is File:Orizaba_Pico_01.jpg I renamed that file. Again, thank you both, —Brother Officer^Talk 05:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

______________

Billinghurst, or anyone who knows how to do this (I don't because it isn't mine)), the file I downloaded from Wikipedia and uploaded to Wiki-Commons works fine but here is a statement that needs attention lest it be deleted from Commons: "This media file does not have sufficient information on its copyright status. Unless the copyright status is provided, the image will be deleted seven days after this template was added: (21 August 2009). " —Brother Officer^Talk 09:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I have copied the file over again with more data from the original file, and this should now be okay. I have marked the earlier copy as a duplicate and we will let Commons tidy it up.

Can I also point you towards w:Wikilinks#Wikilinks and look at how you can do more useful internal wikilinks. -- billinghurst (talk) 10:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Once again you have come through. Little wonder with what I have encountered and ended up confused that I view you as being an excellent worker with excellent knowledge on any Wiki area. You have a gift in this -- one that comes from a lot of past effort in learning and dedication. Of course I am willing to go to the area you have pointed to. I am most willing to work but and I need that knowledge. I have not seen this area you point to but I will. I sincerely regret having to ask anyone for help because I should be able to do these things properly. Again, as stated before, I admire your abilities. Heck, I would like to be able to outwork you if I could! You're a good person Billingshurst. I think I understand wiki links but did not post them here on purpose but I would like to earn more and I would also like to learn how to copy an image on wikipedia with correct information to Commons as you have done. I had never had to do that and I have never uploaded an image to Commons before. However, I have uploaded a few good images to Wikipedia with no problems but apparently that has changed. I hope to soon be loading several images to Commons. I am letting you know this ahead of that point so you can do some more pointing and not have to do what I consideer to be my labors. With all due respect, —Brother Officer^Talk 17:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Where to ask ?

Billinghurst, kind sir, there is not much communication here. I humbly ask, Where would I ask many people the following question -- has anyone ever seen an image of the KOSMOS MEDAL earned by Alexander Von Humboldt (Friedrich Wilhelm Heinrich Alexander Freiherr von Humboldt) and where might I possibly get such an image? The man was internationally famous for decades of scientific explorations.

—Brother Officer^Talk 19:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Been away for work. In answer to your question (and hazarding a guess only), the place to ask would be on Commons:Village pump and they may have a better direction. Similarly WP has a similar place for such a question, or a portal for requested images. -- billinghurst (talk) 22:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I have found it. I have had this for many years and had forgotten where it was due to my moving to several states over years and keeping many things stored in boxes. Thank you for the reply. —Brother Officer^Talk 00:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Billinghurst, thanks for your comments re the Grove Dictionary. It ties together at least two of skills and interests. I'm a good subeditor and a classical musician - including playing the organ in my local parish. Each page takes 10 to 20 minutes to proofread - depending on the number of footnotes. The Beethoven article felt like it took for ever!

I've been playing in my mind with how to do the notation examples. I have Lilypond and started doing some work in there, but the first .png file I got was so big that it wouldn't display in the preview of the page. Accordingly, I paused at that point and decided to get on with the text and come back to the notation later. Unfortunately, some of the notation is "in-line" and I'm not sure how the wiki software copes with this, as I've not seen any examples on pages in wp.

I note that the new proofread collaboration is also of great interest to me. However, I shall resist and wait for it to be completed and will read it then. Cheers. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Blake

I noticed you subpaged Milton, I was just wondering with whether that was the thing to do. Are you familiar with his work? Cygnis insignis (talk) 12:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope, (closest that I come to Blake is w:Blake's 7) I was just going how it was set up in the author page, and trying to fix the variation in the nomenclature. -- billinghurst (talk) 12:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW, see note User talk:Cynthiacaty#Moved_Milton: a Poem

LOL, neither Blakes were ever in that show! I'll dredge up whatever is bothering me. I'm sure you know the incipit "And did those feet, ... Cygnis insignis (talk) 12:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

My classical education is Blake's 7 and Doctor Who too BTW, since graduated to Red Dwarf. Otherwise the closest that I come to poetry is dirty ditties from schooldays.-- billinghurst (talk) 12:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

A poem, a hymn, I guarantee you would know the tune. w:And did those feet in ancient time Cygnis insignis (talk) 12:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

CU

Hello Billinghurst, I have granted you CU flag. As CheckUser you can subscribe to checkuser-l and contact an op for access to #wikimedia-checkuser. And always act based on CheckUser policy. Congratulations and regards, Leinad (talk) 16:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks. Directions/comments are noted, and actions suggested undertaken.-- billinghurst (talk) 22:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ping, you have an e-mail. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Pong, responded. Thanks. -- billinghurst (talk) 01:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thx

Thanks for the invite although I do find DNB project difficult to understand. I'm cuurently working on William Huntington who I'm sure is in DNB. But

1. Not sure how to find him quickly in wikisource
2. How to improve his article when I find it

Any advice Victuallers (talk) 12:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, go first to Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900 and you'll see that the relevant volume is 28. From Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Vol 28 Howard - Inglethorpe you can see more, since it is between Hudson, Michael (DNB00) and Hutchinson, Ralph (DNB00). The Hudson page isn't done by transclusion, but the Hutchinson page is, from Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 28.djvu/322 as you can see by editing it. So far so good. Copy "Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 28.djvu/322" into the search box, and then edit in the browser line to about http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Dictionary_of_National_Biography_volume_28.djvu/280 as a guess: gives a page on Hunters. By bisecting the range I get to Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 28.djvu/291 quickly. But there is a snag ... missing djvus for this one. The text you can find from w:User:Charles Matthews/DNB scans. Choose the link for vol. 28 to http://www.archive.org/details/dictionaryofnati28stepuoft. The text starts this way (p. 309)

Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 28.djvu/315 link given on talk page -- billinghurst (talk)

HUNTINGTON, WILLIAM, S.S. (1745- 1813), eccentric preacher, natural son of Barnabas Russel, farmer, was born in a cot- tage at the Four Wents, on the road be- tween Goudhurst and Cranbrook, Kent, on 2 Feb. 1744-5, and was baptised at Cranbrook Church in the name of his putative father, William Hunt, a labourer, on 14 Nov. 1750. After acquiring the barest rudiments of knowledge at the Cranbrook grammar school, he went into service as an errand-boy, and was afterwards successively gentleman's ser- vant, gunmaker's apprentice, sawyer's pit- man, coachman, hearse-driver, tramp, gar- dener, coalheaver, and popular preacher. Having seduced a young woman, the daugh- ter of a tailor at Frittenden, Kent, he de- camped on the birth of a child, and changed his name to Huntington to avoid identifica- tion (1769). He then formed a connection with a servant-girl named Mary Short, with whom he settled at Mortlake, working as a gardener. Here he suffered much from poverty, and still more from conviction of sin. After removing to Sunbury he went through the experience known as conversion, which was precipitated by a casual conver- sation with a strict Calvinist. Huntington, after failing to obtain satisfaction from the

and then I've placed it on Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 28.djvu/291 and Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 28.djvu/292. (You can use the PDF file at archive.org for proof-reading, by the way). The proof-reading conventions aren't that hard: mostly it's italics, {{sc| }} for small caps, and <small> and </small> to create the small type for references at the end. As this happens to be a glitchy example, it will be simpler to create the article as in Hudson, Michael (DNB00) by filling in the standard header and pasting in the corrected text. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I am in the process of updating the whole volume as it is missing pages, so it would be great to hang off for the moment. -- billinghurst (talk) 14:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Delayed. There is an issue reloading files over the top of previous copies at Commons. There is a projected fix, however, we will need to wait to see what is the outcome. I have deleted the previous pages (they were not going to align with the text), though do have the text saved, which I will return it when things are back in place. -- billinghurst (talk) 01:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

After a lot of sweat blood and repeated attempts to upload 23MB file, we are now sweet after a Commons admin and I did it a cheat way. I just now need to poke in the relevant bits of text. -- billinghurst (talk) 13:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Question

Hey, I'm pretty knew to Wikisource, and I saw that you edited this page from a book I'm working on, and I'm wondering how you got the introduction header in there. Thanks! DroEsperanto (talk) 06:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

the [+] image, at top left, toggles the header and footer for each page, more info at H:SIDE. Also, there are options within My Preferences and click the Gadgets tags. I automatically have the header/footer open each time I open the page. -- billinghurst (talk) 09:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Author:Shirley Jackson

Since the deletion discussion is closed, I've copied your discussion of deleting the author page to Author talk:Shirley Jackson and responded.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

k and thanks ... good solution. The author stuff was afterthough, and I probably should have it outside the box. No harm as the first thought was not to progress further, and not one where I have much more than ambivalence.-- billinghurst (talk)

Spelling clash

Wikipedia shows "Mato Grosso". I added "Matto Grosso" as seen from several primary sources. There are two spellings for this same place and it causes search problems. Please look into this.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matto_Grosso
2. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Matto_Grosso
3. http://en.wikisource.org:80/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&ns0=1&ns1=1&ns2=1&ns3=1&ns4=1&ns5=1&ns6=1&ns7=1&ns8=1&ns9=1&ns10=1&ns11=1&ns12=1&ns13=1&ns14=1&ns15=1&ns100=1&ns101=1&ns102=1&ns103=1&ns104=1&ns105=1&ns106=1&ns107=1&redirs=1&search=Matto+Grosso&limit=500&offset=0

—unsigned comment by Brother Officer (talk) .

Sorry about forgetting to sign. —Brother Officer^Talk 02:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I will have to look at it tomorrow when I have some more time. -- billinghurst (talk) 02:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be confusion. I have returned the Wikipedia redirect to being just that. Titles here follow original spellings. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Confusion it is. Beyond my transcribing two volumes on the Valley of the Amazon that use the spelling of Matto Grosso as opposed to only one choice of Mato Grosso on Wikipedia, click on that 3rd link above and note the "original spellings" of Matto Grosso in those many articles including the book about Teddy Roosevelt that also is there and mentions "Matto Grosso". I have seen the double t many times in these works and the single t as used on Wikipedia only once -- on Wikipedia. A search for Matto Grosso on Wikipedia would not bring up the spelling of "Matto Grosso" nor even show it as an option. It appears not to exist on Wikipedia, the ree "encyclopedia". Please fix that. I had fixed it by eliminating that redirect and I am but a novice so someone smart can should be able to fix this situation. Anyway, I know about the place as I believe many thousands of other people and yet there in search shows that one spelling, that one area, that one source of Mato Grosso. Wikipedia encyclopedia is the best in the world but can be bettered as we learn and as time and tech passes onward into the future.—Brother Officer^Talk 07:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

TY4

Thank you for the welcome. I will have to see how it goes; I do not come across original documents nearly as often as I come across WP material. Anarchangel (talk) 09:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

That is okay, we don't punish underperformers. We have plenty around to while away the quiet days, see WS:PotM or WS:CotW. If there is subject matter of interest, then you can find some interesting things at archive.org. billinghurst (talk) 11:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Help on Djvu

In my pdf source, they scanned two real pages into a page, i.e. the 1st PDF page is page 1 and 2 in the original, 2nd is 3 and 4, etc. I would like to ask some questions about this:

1. Are there any tools to cut a PDF page into 2?
2. If not, am I allowed to upload it into Commons to use in Index: wikisource?
3. How can I describe work in "Pages" field of "creating Index"?

Thanks in advance. Vinhtantran (talk) 11:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Tools for PDF playing outside of Adobe, are not my forte. From what I would have done would have been to duplicate the pages, and then cropped each individually. I would have used Adobe, so I am not much use to you there.
2. I would think so, it would seem to fit the principle of WS, and an area to be bold. Page numbering when converted is all relative, and we can adapt around it. We are most interested in the rendered text.
3. I am presuming that you are asking, how would you describe it utilising <pagelist />. I would think that it would be something that you ignore, and use straight pagelist or do something like <pagelist 1="1-2" 2="3-4" 3="5-6 /> though that may depend on how many pages you have to munge. Doing it the first way means that you would have to use {{Page}} transclusion and transclude the requisite pages, and the second would allow you to use <pages index=... from=... to=... />

I hope that adequately addresses the questions. If I have missed, please do come back to me. -- billinghurst (talk) 14:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding that 75.47 IP following me to Wikisource...

[5] Thanks. --Rschen7754 (talk) 06:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Checks run; details noted; warning issued -- billinghurst (talk) 08:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding that most users supporting Rschen7754 in Wikipedia

Shit! most of them knew about it! Is this the only way to get unblocked / unbanned via of the arbitration committee like this one. I refused to provide any e-mail information for safety and privacy reasons. --75.47.128.85 02:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Not relevant to my discussion, and is spurious to this matter. WP battles are WP issues, they do not belong here.

Whilst all you editors of English Wikipedia think what you know it is easy search. Guess what, Your going to find yourselves not so easy to find me at all. --75.47.128.85 02:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Not relevant to my discussion, and is spurious to this matter. We are not talking about search.

Also that IP address is not mine and someone edit it therefore this is inconclusive. --75.47.128.85 02:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I reiterate. The issue of your disagreement at another site is irrelevant to our management of resources here. Do not bring your battles here, they are unwelcome. A wiki is about a community going forward, not cyberstalking someone with whom you disagree. We will do what is required to maintain the civility, and to keep this site to its purpose. You can play games, and plead ignorance. Whatever! We will do what is required to manage cyberstalking. -- billinghurst (talk) 02:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

As the banning policy states: "This does not mean that obviously helpful edits (such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism) must be reverted just because they were made by a banned user, but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert." The edits of W:Interstate 15 in California and W:Interstate 70 in Utah are meant for helpful edits such as fixing and correcting. --75.47.128.85 02:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

More ignorance statement "Banned user edits can be rollbacked." which is only for vandals and long term abusers. --75.47.128.85 03:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

WP WP WP issues are not relevant to your behaviour here. We cannot and will not participate in their issue resolution. We will and can discuss the behaviour and edits at WikiSource. It is that simple.-- ~

Not at all

Thanks for the changes you made, still learning, so any help is much appreciated. Perhaps you may be able to help with something, on this page I've used Labeled Section Transclusion to avoid an image cutting across the text mid-sentence, (which I believe is encouraged in the 'mainspace' versions of texts to improve readability?). Anyway, the problem is that the link to the page scan covers the text from the previous pagescan's transclusion. I've put in a temporary solution by moving it's position to the left off the page, but was wondering if there is a better way to avoid the problem. Thanks, Copio (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Closing Scheme: An Interpreter for Extended Lambda Calculus

Isn’t it necessary for us to obtain the original authors’ release via m:OTRS where the original work isn’t actually labeled as free content? I have no reason to doubt the bona fides of the editor who has been so diligently working on the content, or the validity of the e-mails he says he exchanged with the authors, but sometimes overzealous editors claim that things are free content when they really aren’t. Just trying to make certain our procedures, as I understand them, have been followed here (or to correct my understanding if I’m mistaken). Tarmstro99 (talk) 14:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It is my understanding that the work is now released under {{cc-by-3.0}} and I did not believe that there is a requirement for us to have an OTRS for works under that classification. Nothing at that tag states that it is so, or is the preferred means to handle works of that nature. My understanding is that OTRS is for works that are copyright and we have an arrangement to host them. Happy to be corrected if I am wrong in any assumptions. If you think that a copy of that information is better served to also have the information as an OTRS, then it would be worthwhile us dropping the person a line telling them so.-- billinghurst (talk) 22:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess the difficulty I am having is determining from the posted e-mail exchanges whether the authors released the work as {{cc-by-3.0}}, or whether our editor added that tag on his own initiative. I don’t have strong feelings about it, however, and am happy just to let the issue lie in the absence of any complaint from anyone. Tarmstro99 (talk) 13:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

(CC-BY does have the authors' approval, yes: see here. --Piet Delport (talk) 14:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC))

If the cc-by-3.0 permission was achieved via discussion on email, and a release is not currently published on the "home website" (or wherever SCHEME is currently archived "officially"), then, in my opinion at least, a copy of the email(s) (with headers, if possible) archived in OTRS is a must. Jude (talk) 22:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay request for {{OTRS ticket}} applied to contributor's talk page. -- billinghurst (talk) 23:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what doing this would attain, given that the emails are already fully archived here with Message-IDs and other normative headers? Copying them to OTRS where the public can't read or confirm them seems like a step backwards to me.

The only rationale i could find for archiving permissions on OTRS in the first place (w:Template talk:PermissionOTRS#Keeping mortal users in the dark) is to avoid exposing personal/sensitive information (which is not called for here); otherwise, if someone "wants their email to be read by anyone, they can post it [on Wikipedia]", which is more or less what's already done. --Piet Delport (talk) 14:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what doing this would attain,: OTRS is the standard, centralised system of archiving permission information. If we start archiving permissions in each project, rather than in OTRS, it will start to get very complicated and stuff will be all over the place. Jude (talk) 09:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

How so? We store the license statement together with the work being licensed for most licensed works, and that's never caused any problems or complications.

An additional copy in OTRS can't hurt, of course, but i don't have access to it (and the OTRS volunteering requirements seem rather daunting...), so whoever is motivated and able, go for it. --Piet Delport (talk) 16:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I sent a letter to the two authors, inviting them to send final permissions letters to permissions@wikimedia.org and notified permissions to expect their e-mails. There is an OTRS-pending notice on the talk page now too (I imported the notice template from Commons). ResScholar (talk) 07:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

DNB ... HU-

Thanks for adding extra's to the pages. It serves as a tutorial for me. It gives me a clue as to how to do the following pages. I see you have left these as proofread ... can I validate them when I have over checked? Any bad errors?

I validated what I had finished checking; I think that in the other page(s) that I just added sections. You are always free to validate or proofread any page, just know that you cannot validate the page that you proofed.

Also .... I notice that the ODNB supply the DNB as free text on their site. Why do we no use this text as a start? Victuallers Victuallers (talk) 07:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

To reply on the ODNB: well, we could, but there is (apparently) an issue to take seriously. The DNB text there may be a later edition than the one we are working on, which is the first. Therefore it would be necessary in each case to check carefully through it, and to undo all the updates by comparison with the first edition. (This is not just pedantry: most likely the later edition is still in copyright.) I was thinking of doing exactly this, as a way of proceeding with parts of the DNB where all the available scans are poor. I don't currently have that ODNB access which would make this all more routine, but I was going to do something about it shortly, and see where it could get us (and check some samples to see how good the transcription is). I'm happy to discuss DNB issues at any point; I watch this page, so this is one good forum, but the project talk page is another. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

No and yes. Charles covered the copyright aspect. The other aspect is that we are reproducing the book. So if the text from ODNB matches the 1-63vol. text, then yes we can copy and paste it, just proof read against our published text. What you take to and use at WP is obviously a different matter. -- billinghurst (talk) 11:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply both of you. My memory is that the ODNB say the DNB is free and "looks" 100% complete but I forget the smallprint and it may be a different print version. I will have a look. As you probably know the odnb is free to anyone who can join a british library. Thanks Billinghurst for finishing off the pages I did. What happens now? Can I do it? Victuallers (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It may be that it is free to access, but free to use, yet they will still retain their intellectual property. Can you do it? Most definitely. This is a team effort, and I did those bits, partly to get them to Validated, however, hopefully as a lead to what else we do. I did transclude the same pages into the main ns, and you can see those efforts at

• Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Vol 28 Howard - Inglethorpe the volume listing
• Huntington, John (DNB00) the bio
• Author:Ronald Bayne the contributor which is the {{DNB RB}} link as per List of Contributors

So there remains articles at WP to either create or to link back to WS using their version of {{Wikisource}} or other variations as are applicable. As a note the main ns stuff is where we started the project, and it is more recently that we have been able to get the printed volumes and proofread there, and transclude the text. -- billinghurst (talk) 21:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

To pick up the Wikipedia end: w:John Huntington doesn't yet exist, and so you can just place "John Huntington" in the "wikipedia =" field of the DNB00 template and start a new article on Wikipedia by copyediting the text from Huntington, John (DNB00). Fortunately this time it is all nice and simple: Huntington is mentioned in w:Marian exiles, so a link there means the new article wouldn't be an orphan. If you then went to w:Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/DNB Epitome 28 and placed the tick template by the entry, I'd be very happy ... Charles Matthews (talk) 15:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

bit more advice and help? I have proofread a lot more pages (see my contributions) but I need a few validating to let me experiment with adding then into the volume. The other question is.... If a page is not validated then can it still be added to the emerging book?

There is no requirement to have them validated before transcluding, in fact no requirement to have proofread, just ugly and difficult.

Last question: Can you see any systematic errors in the pages I'm doing? Thx Victuallers (talk) 13:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I have casually glanced at a couple, though not paid more attention than that, though nothing have jumped out at me. Allow me a little time, and I will peruse. -- billinghurst (talk) 13:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

thx - please note that there are 3 questions above ... my fault - bad formatting. cheers Victuallers (talk) 14:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the prompt reply ... I see many of the points now in the page you tidied. Remaining question (for now :-) )... do I need to stop working with a page until it is validated or can I add it to the book as you demonstrated above? Victuallers (talk) 14:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

One more thing that may help to clarify. The transclusion is of the "live" version of pages, meaning that extra corrections of course feed through to the created articles. But you may not see this ... but in that case it is because you are seeing a cached, older version. If you edit the article to see the preview, you will always (I think) see the version that is live for everyone else, not what is cached. There is no reason to hold back creating articles, I feel. I tend to find quite a number of minor corrections as I adapt the articles for WP, and since it all works as I have just said, I make the "page" corrections as I go along. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

bot bug

Hi,

I think this is a bug; you should not be unlinking the volume like that. Hesperian 04:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure which bit to which you are referring. The breadcrumb for all books is now at the top of the each page, OR the removal of the piping. -- billinghurst (talk) 05:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm referring to the unlinking of "Volume 2". If you were unlinking both the ../../ and the ../, then I could understand (though still disagree); but unlinking one but not the other makes no sense to me. Hesperian 05:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Not trying to upset anyone's work, nor do things that are unwarranted, nor undo wanted components, just simplifying, and in some places we have a high level of complexity that doesn't seem to add value since the breadcrumbs are available.

BEFORE	
| title = [[../../|The miscellaneous botanical works of Robert Brown]], [[../|Volume 2]]
AFTER	
| title = [[../../]], Volume 2 

in my view, all the breadcrumbs for each level of subpages are available at the top of the page, similarly for me, the [[../../]] gives the full title. Are you indicating that you believe that the breadcrumb should also be available in the title? -- billinghurst (talk) 06:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Given these three options for that page:

1. The miscellaneous botanical works of Robert Brown, Volume 2, Remarks on the structure and affinities of Cephalotus

Wikilinks (as breadcrumbs) are available from the top of the page and for every page that we serve, and for every sublevel of a work and it is respectively updated without needing to undertake wiki-coding.

1. The miscellaneous botanical works of Robert Brown, Volume 2, Remarks on the structure and affinities of Cephalotus
2. The miscellaneous botanical works of Robert Brown, Volume 2, Remarks on the structure and affinities of Cephalotus

the middle one, seems, um, unthinkable. That's why I called it a "bug": I couldn't, and don't, understand why someone would pick it. A decision to provide the breadcrumbs again leads to option 1. A decision not to provide information that is redundant to the breadcrumbs leads to option 3. So what are you thinking that has led to option 2? Are you linking to the document root and nothing else?

Hesperian 07:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do believe that we should be able to get to the root of a work from anywhere within a work. Since the breadcrumbs began being served on the tops of our pages, it would seem there is a level of redundancy in complex coding of Title lines. If you think that it adds to your works, and that it was too bold for me to modify them, just need to tell me and I will undo those changes, and just modify the Author lines. If it is inconvenience, then my apologies. -- billinghurst (talk) 12:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Yes, I do believe that we should be able to get to the root of a work from anywhere within a work"; but you can do that via the breadcrumbs. And one might just as well argue that one should be able to get to the root of a volume from anywhere within a volume... but then again you can do that via the breadcrumbs too. Anyhow, I've made my point; I think you see why I thought it was a bug rather than an intentional change.

On reflection, I still like these links to remain in the header. Yes there is redundancy, but if I had a choice between which to eliminate, these are the ones I would keep. i.e. if there was some way to suppress the breadcrumbs, I guess I would want to do so.

I think I will undo that particular change to text that I'm working on; there is no need for you to do it, though it is nice of you to offer. I am not asking you to stop doing it altogether; if you make more changes to texts I'm working on I'll just tweak them back without bothering you about it. Hesperian 12:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

validated

The transciption for this has been disputed, twice, I contend it is more a case of what people 'know' rather that what they 'see'. There are, for example, no annotations such as cool-i-bah. The text version was disputed at the wikipedia article, let 'em. The original transcript seems to just be a decoration on the page, and the links to the other place are to awful stubs. The text version was disputed at the wikipedia article, let 'em. This is all unstable, validate what you like, but it is not a suitable Featured text candidate. Cygnis insignis (talk) 02:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't comment on its worthiness, and would say that the place for that discussion is not best here.

One option is to undo this edit: the edit summary makes it clear that there wouuld be no objection to doing so. Hesperian 02:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

(Oh, things in unison ... a task came up while I was editing at FTC and had to pause) I would agree with you, though, we have an option to validate or leave at proofread, are we going to another level of disputed with an option of not validating. I am happy for the change to Matilda, and we can look to a consensus. Only way to know for sure is to see the original, or a high quality copy in a reasonable resolution. Would feel that a note on the talk page would be meaningful.

An issue for proofreading is how do we manage a text with a level of dispute, I would suggest that a level of protection makes for a more obvious disagreement/complication, rather than notes on a talk page, or history. One tends not to read those prior to proofreading. -- billinghurst (talk) 04:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Possible bot problem

Hi, I'm perusing Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume I and note that some header templates have errored since your bot changed {{header2}} to {{header}}. We also now have erroneous author information. For example, Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume I/POLYCARP/Epistle to the Philippians is showing Ignatius of Antioch as the author when it should, of course, be Polycarp. I would just revert it, but wonder if I would then end up edit warring with your bot. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Located all parts of works, and amended. -- billinghurst (talk) 10:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Author on CPA

I notice all the documents on Wikisource:Coalition Provisional Authority are having their author changed to w:Coalition Provisional Authority, and I'm thinking it would make more sense to treat Wikisource:Coalition Provisional Authority as their authorpage, not WP. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:David Livingstone.} 15:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, on those pages all I have done is applied |override_author = over the top of |author= . The links to WP were already there, and were not changed. Happy to run the bot over the pages, and to redirect them. -- billinghurst (talk) 19:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

On second thoughts, there seems to be a right mix of directions that these links progress. Specific instruction on how you would like links applied would be useful. Double linking to Wikisource:Coalition Provisional Authority doesn't seem appropriate, and we should also consider the use of {{indexes}}. Getting them to better align with the the guide would be ideal. -- billinghurst (talk) 20:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Header question.

You placed a header on United States Code/Title 46/Subtitle V/Part D/Annex but it was already moved from the 2007 Energy Act and transcluded into the US Code page. Being rather new to all this, how should I fix it? I did say to forget about this page and just delete the one first named in the section title of Proposed Deletions. I was just trying to avoid having to explain why copying the content and then deleting the headerless page was needed in addition to the redundant page (unrelated though both were headerless subpages of the same Act) George Orwell III (talk) 10:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. Simply wrap the header in <noinclude> </noinclude>. Such components are not included when transcluded. Done. -- billinghurst (talk) 10:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

2009 Nobel citation

I responded on my talk page. Please restore this, as press releases are specifically released from the Nobel Committee's copyright claim. Tarc (talk) 15:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Restored, citing link at Obama 'humbled' by Nobel peace prize. If I missed something, let me know. Cygnis insignis (talk) 19:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks.-- billinghurst (talk) 00:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

In use templates

Hi, and thanks for the template info. Ineuw (talk) 01:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Kipling stuff

Story of the Gadsbys and Poor Dear Momma are on Google Books, 1889; The Man who Would be King is also (1899).--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Proofreading

I guess you read the message I saved and then erased. That's because I fund the radio buttons, which I haven't noticed at first. :-) Thanks. Ineuw (talk) 00:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

DELETE A PAGE

Billinghurst, or whomever knows the answer, how do I totally delete a page?

Thanking you beforehand,

William Maury Morris (talk) 05:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

If it is page of your creation and you are the only contributor, mark it for speedy delete with {{sdelete}} and you can also add a reason like this {{sdelete|author requesting deletion}}. If it is a standard page and you believe that it requires deletion, then add {{delete}} and then add a link and reason at Wikisource:Proposed deletions and that starts a discussion. In a wiki, editors don't have deletion rights. -- billinghurst (talk) 07:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It is a page of my creation and I am the only contributor. I decided on a better way to do something with the book's pages. Thank you, William Maury Morris (talk) 07:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Please delete the pages in the book that I have marked. (Physical Geography Of The Sea 1855.)I marked the pages just as you told me above. Thank you tireless worker William Maury Morris (talk) 22:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Someone has dealt with the pages during my absence. -- billinghurst (talk) 10:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Billinghurst, thank you for updating my author's page to the acceptable standards; i'm a newbee here and really grateful for help and good advice. Kind regards - Alex V Mandel (talk) 12:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Author: Johanne Lohmann

Hi, billinghurst: I am most grateful to you for the changes made by you and by your observation that the copyright question needs clarification. According to your advice, I sent the following eMail to info@wikisource.org:

[snip]

I hope that this settles the matter.--Johann31 (talk) 06:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Cromwell

Thank you for helping proofread Cromwell. Just to save your time if you want to help more, the full text of the preface is available proofread on Wikisource at Preface to Cromwell so it doesn't need to be proofread again. The text is identical. Thanks again.--Natl1 (talk) 12:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Thx. We could look to copy the proofed text over, and transclude the pages back. -- billinghurst (talk) 12:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Done-- billinghurst (talk) 04:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Horrid scan

No argument from me about this, but here we have a case where the alternate scan is just fine. So I added several more pages of text. There is the general underlying issue: the first pass posting of djvus having left these effectively useless images, is it worth just going to the PDFs of a better scan and troubleshooting? (I don't know the extraction technology, but presumably I could learn and substitute at Commons the ugliest customers.) The reason I hesitate is that some whole volumes might be better replaced, and that would call for automation. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Umm, err. I am no expert on DjVu file formats, though do know that they are bundled pages, with an image and the text, such that they can be built and deconstructed, even to the point of extracting/inserting pages. Whether it can be done _on_ server, I do not know. One would hope that there was secret means to do rather than download, pull apart, reconstruct, reupload. We had identified that there were some craps scans, however, trying to resolve that discussion meant we sunk into a mire, and the idea of buying and scanning a set was just wishful thinking. {John Vandenburg or ThomasV are probably more around the DjVu technology.)

That said, we can do a level of cheating and get back to the complete (bundled) works per se at a later time. For our final outcome of transcluded pages we can transclude from anywhere and including multiple files, into the main namespace, and look at the stitching problem when we can. To this point, we can always scan individual pages (as a last resort), upload and work from those. Personally, for this project my major interest is the availability of the information contained, rather than worrying about the purity of each work.<shrug>

Plus apologies for no response to some other questions. I have been as busy as a blue-arsed fly, and getting to concentrate on DNB has been tough, especially when one nominated the WS:PotM. billinghurst (talk) 08:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

OK - my interest too is in the information, and in grabbing it to bump up WP. I shall proceed as before, and just proof-read somewhat from the PDFs to make the articles that most attract me. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Awards

You ought to have them too! So if I may have your permission to give them to you, here they are:

Thanks again for all your tremendous work. --Zyephyrus (talk) 22:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I do have them quietly put on another page. <meek smile>-- billinghurst (talk) 10:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Another page? Which one? They are hidden very well! ;-) --Zyephyrus (talk) 20:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Celtic Fairy Tales

Hey,

I've been meaning to give you thanks for your work on Celtic Fairy Tales. I definitely appreciate some of the work spent on validating those pages.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 14:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Very welcome. I believe it is what we are all about.-- ab

Headers, footers and other goodies

Hi. Thanks for the info. Yesterday, I studied proofreads prior to mine, and went through all my work from #29 to #98 and corrected the missed italics, removed the headers, the last hyphens connoting continuance, and used two hyphens -- to indicate the em dash, for reasons I won't mention :-). I will continue from 99 and leave 29-89 for the 2nd proofreader if that's OK. Ineuw (talk) 13:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

One more excuse. I was using the beta skin which lacks page navigation and the header/footer [+] view. Now, I reverted to the classic editor which makes things much easier. Ineuw (talk) 14:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

My edit summary comment

My apologies about the confusion, the issue is not important - but thanks for asking! --Piotrus (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Apologies

Apologies for the confusion [6]. It is public at Commons but I can see how it would have been best, as you said, to allow Cygnis insignis (talk • contribs) to respond if he wished to. Cirt (talk) 17:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Template changes

I saw an extra category so investigated a bit! Have fixed the contributor category usage in the header template and added an expression for WP entries. mattbr 13:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, didn't see that. I have updated the documentation. Thanks, mattbr 16:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the awards. I appreciate them very much. :) Regards, Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 19:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

No expense spared! -- billinghurst (talk)

Advice: Vandalism or Good Faith?

Hello, again.

Before I revert an edit by some non-registered user I wanted to be sure not to do so in a manner contrary to WS practice. I only ask because the edit, while completely inappropriate for what amounts to "locked" content in the form of an Act of Congress, is not of the Azz-Puss or whatever variety but one that raises valid points better hashed out in the typical Wikipedia manner rather than here. TIA. George Orwell III (talk) 22:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

(Sorry for butting in!) Whether or not the text is vandalism, it's not part of the original text, and definitely doesn't belong there. If anything, it should be discussed on the talk page. Regardless, Wikisource is not really the medium for discussing the legality of laws and by-laws. Jude (talk) 23:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

What he said. In short, the work belongs in the body; and commentary, source, etc. belong in the Notes or on the respective talk page. Similarly, if there are subpages, most categorisation belongs at the top level, not at sub-level unless there is a point of difference to make. -- billinghurst (talk) 04:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I assumed as much but simply reverting things without any explaination given (not even in the comments field) in light of the apparent "good faith" some edits are made in does not always sit well with me. The closer I observe the happenings around here the more it becomes clear that things like this are more the norm than the exception. Again, my two cents is worth exactly that - two cents - but I really came to you here only because you tend not to overlook the reader/editor, be it a new-comer or a well-known regular, as something more than just another intrusion or annoyance (IMHO) in somebody's project or whatever. In this case, it was just a one-time-IP-address-only type user so I can grudgingly live with it. Thanks. George Orwell III (talk) 05:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see the hint of a question of "How do I handle it". Generally I will undo with a comment along the lines of

1. quick summation in Summary field of why undone, then
   1. (for named user) a {{welcome}}, quick note on User page of what I have done, and sometimes further explain why
   2. (for IP address) put {{subst:welcomeip}} and as above
2. if less than good faith, then I also add {{test}}
3. if vandalism/vulgarity where they know it, then I just rollback.

Commentary can be along the lines of

• Works at Wikisource are replicas of earlier published works and are reproduced as they were at the time of publishing
• Reverted. Changes were unsourced, uncommented.
• Your note has been moved to the Talk page.

etc. Keeping tone neutral. If they have a question, they will get back to you. -- billinghurst (talk) 06:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

No need to tap-dance around the fact I specifically wanted to know what you recomended here - I thought I alluded to that point in the very first sentence - so there's no hinting involved at all. The fact the edit was inappropriate was already a given and NEVER the question & NEVER considered not reverting it either >long sigh<. Thank you for your time and, of course, the requested feedback I was looking for. George Orwell III (talk) 06:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

And there is the difference between just and legal. Also, try to remember what is the purpose of Wikisource. It is not to record verbatim every conversation, nor every speech, nor to record every item about US law and US presidents, it is to reproduce published works in the public domain. So when NBC loses its copyright on the work, we can reproduce, so our task is to work hard at being here for that time. :-)

With all due and utmost respect :-) I don't believe you or anybody else speaks as the absolute voice of an ongoing collective collaboration that's normal state should be one of constant flux. The reality in the Super Bowl instance is the White House transcript satisfies WS """Standards""" via the Creative Commons 3.0. I raised the point and nobody acknowledged or dismissed such licensed work as meeting or missing qualification for WS. Since the general effort, in my limited observances on an almost daily basis since at least February, seems to be geared more toward repressing entities such as branches of government and any sub-divisions under it including other "entities" who aren't so much individuals in any rational mind, rather than actually completing the listing of what's acceptable under which license, there is little point in proclaiming this or that is there?

Forgive the inappropriate place this is posted George Orwell III (talk) 21:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Never claimed that I did, nor that I wanted to be an absolute voice, and not sure that how what I said could be seen that way. Not sure that conclusions that you are drawing from my statement are what I was attempting to say, as there was no thought of criticism either implicit or explicit. <shrug> -- billinghurst (talk) 05:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thx for the update. I have been using your template and I notice that if I change the page range then it still works. Have you thought of leaving out the page range entirely and rely on it finding the correct sections? I'm not sure if there is a performance hit but it would be simpler and have one less thing for a human to get wrong. Victuallers (talk) 20:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll try and catch the developer and have the discussion.-- billinghurst (talk) 20:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment: recording the page numbers has quite a number of advantages, though. I wouldn't be happy with having them omitted: for example any time you want to make a small text correction, or check back against the original, or suspect there might have been vandalism, you want a quick reference to the Page-space version. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thomas said it is too expensive in cycles anyway. Note that if a whole page is inhaled (within the page range) that it doesn't need to be section'd. If the from= ... to= is omitted it will still display the page numbers as that is what the script does, and they are toggled on/off on the LHS of the page.

Note that we don't have to use <pages> we can still use {{Page}} to inhale the page. If I was going to write a script, I just wrote it so that it could manage multiple pages scenarios. Part of the issue was that we had carried on with the original style that others had used — and I hadn't wanted to rock the boat — and in the end I thought that it was antiquated and as the personnel had changed I was more prepared to suggest the change. billinghurst (talk) 07:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking about the section marking on entire pages. I suppose I don't know the precise aim, in getting a final text version segmented in various ways (into articles, pages, volumes). More precise question, therefore, example running over three pages. Say I start on page 100, put in my "section begin" marker there, place "section end" at the end of p. 100, omit section markers on p. 101, place "section begin" and "section end" on p. 102. It all probably works if the "section end" on p. 100 is omitted; but this seems bad practice in terms of a style in which "parentheses" once opened should be closed. (The "section begin" on p. 102 is presumably vital.) In some applications parsing the text in the future, would the absence of the mark-up be felt? Like some other DNB issues, it is still kind of fuzzy to me what we want. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I generally try to keep all tags on a page complete, things just seem to get screwy when being too smart especially with transclusions. I work on the premise that I want the whole page, or a part of it, and mark the partials as such. billinghurst (talk) 11:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Simple Wikisource

I added the underconstruction tag to the page. Negano (talk) 11:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Munich

Thanks for the heads up. - Mtmelendez (talk) 20:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

q

Are you doing what I think you're doing? :-) Hesperian 06:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Umm, I dunno. I am doing three things at the moment as everything is taking so long to load

• Derivatives of Index:Notes on the churches in the counties of Kent, Sussex, and Surrey.djvu
• Cruising through Cyg's contribs and ticking off DNB & SBDEL stuff in Page:space
  • and thinking (and groaning) can I be bothered aligning SBDEL text and images
• Patrolling

Is that what you thinking I should be doing? <shrug> billinghurst (talk) 07:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Mate, I wouldn't dream of telling you what you should be doing. I stalk Cyg—use a script to identify his proofread pages, then validate them. Within a few minutes of me updating my list at User:Hesperian/C, you had validated several of its pages; e.g. [7]. I rather got the impression you were making use of my list yourself. Wrong again, I guess. Hesperian 07:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Crap! Looks like I have been doing it the hard way. That looks like a better sorted list then I have been using, except it isn't showing the full Page: namespace doings. -- billinghurst (talk) 07:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

If you use pywikipedia, I'm happy to throw my code at you. Hesperian 09:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Template

I made a quick stab at {{Active projects}}, if you want to take a look and tinker with it; ideally I'd like it to be smaller to be the same size as CotW and PotW for the welcome template to not "resize" when it's selected; but keep an image (that one, or a similar one showing "collaborative writing"). Thoughts? Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din.} 17:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Greek Unicode

Thanks for that great link. The character is not there, so, I will search for someone later. Ineuw (talk) 18:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

On Knoxville manifesto

Hi, I want to assert that the Knoxville church shooting manifesto is not a copyrighted document, but a manifesto or open letter in a style similar to that of the Unabomber; in particular, he addressed this "to whom it may concern", meaning that it was to all who had an interest in his ideals and motivations, rather than to one person. If there is no coverage of this letter's contents on Wikisource, then some of it should at least be included in Wikiquote. --Toussaint (talk) 04:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

To whom it may concern does not make it public domain nor what would be a published open letter and therefore copyable to WS. If there is evidence that the American courts and law would see that the document is in the public domain, then happy to hear that evidence. billinghurst (talk) 05:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Florence Earle Coates

Thanks for all the touch-ups to the FEC pages... Much more refined! Wondering if you might have an answer to a question posed on my Talk page...? Thank you, Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

That was fast, thank you! Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Kansas Senate Prayer

Thanks for the correction in title. --TheMandarin (talk) 05:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

uplaod

Hi

My english not so good. my Language is Hebrew. I uploaded that file because I want to create someing like this. can you help me.

I don't now how to found the fole the I uploaded. --Israel.M (talk) 17:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm meaning to be here at English Wikisource because only over here you can create something like this.

do you can create that for me?

I would have thought that it was possible at Hebrew WS, the Index/Page: environment is not special to English WS. Your English is far better than my Hebrew. :-) billinghurst (talk) 09:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The pool is deep

Thanks for your most informative message, and grateful for permitting to dip my toe and allowing to experiment. The concern is that I am taking up too much of the resources by moving, deleting, and thus giving the admins additional work, as well as sucking up resources.

The namespace concept is self-explanatory, but I need to digest a lot of information. I am compiling a list of answers as to where I was heading and why, posting them from now on the TPSM discussion page, rather than the Scriptorium.

Template:The Parson's Opinion of "The Parson's Cause" (Rev. Jas. Maury vs P Henry)

Maury, Reverend James vs Henry, Patrick -- "The Parson's Opinion Of The Parson's Cause" Billinghurst, I placed some history on a page and for the first time it shows the above, "Template", preceeding the title. I don't know what caused that and I have never seen it before minutes ago. Can you, or rather will you (or anyone who has the authority and know-how) be so kind as to remove "Template" from the title? William Maury Morris (talk) 18:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Done here. You put it inside double braces {{ }} which is the code for a template. -- billinghurst (talk) 20:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

BIG NOTE. I have also done further editing (diff). It would seem that you are over-coding your pages. This is a wiki and there is lots of CSS code that automatically gets applied to pages when they are rendered to the reader. Hence there is no need to put text inside <p> </p>, that is assumed as part of the rendering. See how the above Diff to see what I have done. There are also lots helping templates that can be used, for example see what I did with {{right}}. You are doing a great job and bringing interesting sources to Wikisource, I think that we can do a little more to get the same result with a little less effort. :-) billinghurst (talk) 21:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

- Thank you so much! I don't know how those braces got there. I sure don't recall placing them there. Everything looked fine to me except having "Template" at the top. I honestly think a wiki gremlin did that. In reference to over-coding I always want a full justification just as a book has. I cannot stand a "ragged" right side of the page and books are not that messy. I don't use and this is the first time that I have ever typed that. I always look at the source so I did notice your {{right}} but I don't see much difference than my use of p align="right" -- they both worked just fine. I do leave extra spacing because I am an old fellow and my eyes get weary as text bleeds to a point of a blur. Someday I may have to get eyeglasses but not yet. I have learned a lot from you regarding what to do and not to do and I appreciate it. You have an almost thankless task and yet you are always helping others aside from what you prefer to work on. William Maury Morris (talk) 22:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Page:Plato or Protagoras.djvu/19

Your edit notes indicated that you did something with the Greek passage, but I didn't see any change there in the diff. Did you mean to make any corrections there? (I figured you must have, since I don't know Greek--I transcribed that purely by eyeball.) --LarryGilbert (talk) 18:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

um, no, I squealed like a pig, and went and dumped it on the talk page for WS:PotM with a plaintive whine for someone with Greek skills to finish the beastie off. Which Zeph kindly did. :-) With only a couple of pages left, I thought it best to pull it out of the rotation. BTW you do great work. billinghurst (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! --LarryGilbert (talk) 21:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Not a bug ...

A curious artefact with DNBset, which I have been using. On pasting text from the rendered article, you can get this:

He disapproved of the introduction of Sunday schools (Polwhele, Reminiscences, i. 138-42), but in a sermon before the House [ 267 ] of Lords on 30 Jan. 1779 he advocated an extension of toleration to the dissenters (Hore, Church of England, i. 435-6).

as from Ross, John (1719-1792) (DNB00), second sentence of third para, where the transclusion crosses from one page to the next. This [ 267 ] doesn't appear on the page, but is in the "plain text" pasted version. What seems curious to me is that arriving at Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 49.djvu/272, what appears is the square brackets is not 272, but 267 which is the original DNB page number. Staring at the template code tells me nothig much. Is the original page number stored in some way in the djvu? That could be useful. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Page numbering in <pages> is taken from the <pagelist> on the Index:... file, which is why I have been slowly working through updating them.

Less welcome is the compulsory newline as in the references section of Lyttelton, Charles (1714-1768) (DNB00). I don't see how to get round that from the Page end. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Due to the formatting with {{smaller}}. I have copied text over and done includeonly and noincludes, which is a little ugly munge, though effective.-- billinghurst (talk) 10:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Question on proofread articles

Billinghurst, what happens with pages like Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 14.djvu/690 once they have been proofread? Do they stay in the format they are in or are they used to create articles for wikipedia or wikisource? There are manny grand articles in the Popular Science Monthly. I enjoy reading them as I work to proofread them. But I don't think they should stay isolated page by page in the area they are in now once they have been proofread. What are we allowed to do with these articles? Can we place them together as an article and use links as well as appropriate illustrations for them?

Respectfully,
William Maury Morris (talk) 05:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Books/articles in the Page: namespace are proofread there, and then transcluded into the main namespace. An example of that I am working upon at the moment is Index:Notes on the churches in the counties of Kent, Sussex, and Surrey.djvu being made into Notes on the churches in the counties of Kent, Sussex, and Surrey. One would think that PSM will get the same treatment.

So from your point of view, you can join the project or you can help proofread, and watch the pages appear.-- billinghurst (talk) 06:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Info@wikisource.org

Billinghurst, is there someone at this address who actually hands out OTRS tickets? I have been directing people to permissions@wikimedia.org. ResScholar (talk) 06:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Bookofjude, well so he says. -- billinghurst (talk) 10:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The gap

Many thanks. I was about to dump my creation. :) 16:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: {{rule}} and all your help and guidance

Thanks again for the guidance. It will take me some time to get to know all previous template efforts. Some, I find fascinating. Therefore, the aim is to template everything so that a bot can find and replace. Last night, I had to go offline and couldn't finish as promised. A component of this unfinished effort is copied from the {{rule}} template and I am studying this. Ineuw (talk) 15:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Editing button javascript

Hi. I would like to take you up on your offer made last evening^[1] about a custom edit button, with the js placed on my user page. I could really use one for the most tedious of tasks, which is the insertion of the {{gap}} at the start of all paragraphs, (with the exception of the first,) in every chapter. This would also give me a chance to rekindle my long dormant and limited knowledge of js. Ineuw (talk) 19:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

1. My last evening

Sdrewthbot edit

On Wood, Robert (1622?-1685) (DNB00), with the updating of the transclusion, the final parenthesis of the section field was lost. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

That would have been an operator error in the copy and paste. Thanks for the pickup billinghurst (talk) 21:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Another diff: this time the WP lk was truncated. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Index:1911 Encyclopedia Britanica vol-1a-ad valorem .djvu

No, I don't know about any EB1911 material at Wikimedia Commons. I was grateful when I found Tim Starling's scans as the graphics in my source are pretty wretched although the photographs are better. I have admired the DNB project and will probably dip in here and there if the OCR texts and pages are readily available, like I do with NSRW. And I have borrowed some things, mainly {{EB1911 contributor}}. I am not familiar with the djvu format. I got to use things like that in de.wikisource.org, but someone else always set it up. I was never very successful setting up all the details myself. Point me to documentation and I might learn myself. I've seen something like that going on at NSRW with that project's pages of OCR text. But it doesn't seem to work very well with my Firefox browser, at least the version I use. I did better with the German version of the technology, but even there the images would get clipped awkwardly as I remember. NSRW does look nice on Internet Explorer at the library. I'll have to try it on their Firefox. When I get a chance I will look over your links you provided and look into what you are doing at DNB. Thanks for the tips. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 01:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Your example is interesting, and I saw this setup when browsing another Wikisource document, though I forget which. On the Cologne Blue skin, the page numbers run into the menu commands which are also in the left margin. This makes it difficult to click on a page without hitting a random menu command. In the German version the page numbers were embedded in the text. But maybe that's just because I don't use Cologne Blue there. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 02:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Blake, William

Where is this going? Is the intention to dab dictionaries and encyclopaedias that style their entries 'Surname, Jane'? Cygnis insignis (talk) 07:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It is the bud of an idea, especially where there may not be an author page where we add Works about. We need a means to disambiguate like entries, and that was a means generated. Whether that should be at William Blake, and then have a redirect from Blake, William, dunno. Happy to hear your opinions.-- billinghurst (talk) 11:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Also we need issues like

	(Move log) . . Charles Matthews (Talk | contribs | block) Lowe, James (DNB00) moved to Lowe, James (d.1865) (DNB00) (dab is required) 

which are going to force disambiguation places, so then it becomes one or more? billinghurst (talk) 11:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Scottish Record Society Volumes

Hi sDrewth, have you thought of creating a project for the Scottish Record Society Volumes that you want to download? It would be cool if we could have another complete series like the PSM project. I saw it on your talk page. What do you think of that? Please respond on my talk page. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 07:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

No, sir, it isn't supposed to be under "Author"

I had just started working on it and needed to add a lot more information plus re-arrange some things. You are fast! I have to figure out how to un-fix this now...... —Brother Officer^Talk 20:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, someone else moved it, and I just deleted the redirect. What needs to be (un)fixed?

If you wish to develop works, one of the means for doing this is as a subpage to your account, eg. User:Brother Office/John Smith and it is less likely to be touched. As an established user, you would be able to move the work into the main namespace, or wherever at that time. The other means to get people to leave more alone is to look to utilise the templates {{inuse}} or {{under construction}}. billinghurst (talk) 21:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, no big deal except when it was sent to "Author", for whatever reason, I could no longer use the same header of "Marin H. Jansen" The system showed a warning that I was recreating a topic that had been moved.I did have this though "1893; under construction starting Nov 11, 2009 by Brother Officer" and that's close to {{under construction}}. I didn't know about "{{under construction}}", someone didn't look before they assumed "Author" and I usually try to finish a page as much as I can but I was trying to work on several things at once this time. I don't post little scraps and leave them as such. I always work into an article, page or book. Anyhow, no harm done, thank you for the tip, and Happy Veteran's Day —Brother Officer^Talk 22:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

DNB gaps

I have done a trawl to find the gaps and duplications in the DNB page sequences, by the only quick method that is obvious to me (check the offset near the beginning, middle and end, and see if these are consistent). I have entered up the results in the Progress table, which I hope now registers most of the problem. (Clearly this isn't going to catch page permutations, which do happen, and if there are compensating errors then I might not have spotted those.) Charles Matthews (talk) 21:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Slowly working my way through them. Thx. billinghurst (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Non-transcluded validated pages

Half an hour was about right. It's running now. There are a lot of them. The bulk of them occur in big contiguous blocks, which is good news. There are also a lot of deliberately excluded individual pages — e.g. Page:Celtic Fairy Tales.djvu/10 — I don't know what you plan to do with them.

No idea. I hadn't preplanned a response. I wanted to know whether we could first (WINNER HESP!); then the extent of the issue; and what it might mean. Gut feel would be to add an exclude tag/cat, something simple that works.

Do you have a place for me to put the output, or shall I find somewhere in my user subspace?

Hesperian 00:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Results at User:Hesperian/V. 1802 pages. It took just over two hours to run. Please feel free to copy it, move it, edit it, whatever. Also feel free to request another run at any time, or to suggest changes or tweaks. Hesperian 02:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks. That seems as good as any place for the start, and we can then work out what we should be doing on an ongoing basis. -- billinghurst (talk) 03:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

No worries mate. I fear that I've done the easy bit, and doing something useful with the list will prove a pain in the backside.

One concern is I see a lot of recent stuff on the list: stuff that people are working on as we speak. I guess you want to clean up the forgotten and abandoned bits; you don't want to get under anyone's feet if they are still working on something. So it might be good to provide output as a table that can be sorted into validation order, so that the oldest pages can be dealt with first. Or maybe set a cut-off date; e.g. only list pages validated before 2009. Hesperian 03:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Next time around, I have now created Category:Not to transclude which I will add pages to, and allow us to exclude. billinghurst (talk) 08:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I've got no idea what this is about, but I assume it would be trivial for someone to correct this index and show where I am up to. Ta. Cygnis insignis (talk) 18:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that you are talking about a different matter. I presume your issue is that some of the pages that have been validated now show as being red on the Index page. That issue has been identified and resolved with a fix waiting in SVN for the next code update. From discussion last night it was explained to me that what is happening there is ... that the Index: page has been identifying where pages have changed, and it has drilled down to where templates used have been updated too, so our changes yesterday to {{hws}} and {{rh}} are now identified. For the moment we need to null edit the pages, and I cannot get my bot to null edit. :-/ billinghurst (talk) 22:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I click edit, add a summary and save it - will that not stick? Cygnis insignis (talk) 22:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

It should. As you will have seen, I add null edit (minor) and save, as if it still has {{PageQuality}} it will convert that to <pagequality> and make a real edit. billinghurst (talk) 22:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

When is the next update? Cygnis insignis (talk) 23:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

How long is a piece of string? :-( billinghurst (talk) 23:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Protected/cascaded pages prevent changes to template documentation, but not source pages.

I was hoping to add a cut'n'pasteable code sample to Template:Hyphenated word start, but for plebians like me, it's locked for editting with the message:

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:

This page has been protected from editing, because it is included in the following pages, which are protected with the "cascading" option turned on:

    * Descriptive account of the panoramic view, &c. of King George's Sound, and the adjacent country
    * The Fight at Dame Europa's School 

The history of those page shows Billinghurst as having done the lock. Given you're an administrator, can you please unlock the documentation? Thanks in advance!

(I'm impressed that there've been two edits on The Fight at Dame Europa's School since the protection; hopefully that won't mess up the reason for the protected status.) -- SoftlySaid (talk) 17:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

{{documentation}} page created. Thanks for the request. billinghurst (talk) 19:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for splitting out the documentation for me! -- SoftlySaid (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

User talk page categorized as a typography template.

Looking at Category:Typography templates, I observe to my surprise that User_talk:Parrot_of_Doom shows up as a typography template. I did a quick check, and there doesn't appear to be any template on that page (although you've made 6 of the 7 updates, including an interesting one about schliff-s.) Would it be possible for you to please remove the (mis-)categorization from that page? —unsigned comment by SoftlySaid (talk) .

Fixed. I left out a leading colon where I used the category in the body of the text. D'uh. billinghurst (talk) 22:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

My first go at a transclusion

Hi, I've just had a go at transcluding Nature (1836) from Page space. Would you mind having a look at it to make sure I've done it correctly? I basically copied what had been done for A Study in Scarlet.

The Table of Contents looks a bit odd on my screen - over to the left. I'm also not sure how to put the work onto Author:Ralph Waldo Emerson given that there is already a copy there with the 1836 date on it. The notes on the Index to this copy indicate that that copy is probably not the 1836 edition.

Thanks, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Proofreading problem

Hi, Just spotted that new user Kees has been proofreading pages that are already validated and marking them as proofread. Presumably this is because his browser is showing the pages as not proofread. Is there a way of gently disposing of these or shall I go back in and validate them along behind him? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I have modified to the newest variation of the Proofread layout with <pages ... />, then through the edits I have demonstrated a variety of formats readily available (look through edit history), and while we remain true to the content, we do need to remember that this is the web, and our page needs to reflect some of that. Choose one that you like and restore it.

I modified the ToC on the Page:/9 to be a centred table, and that seems to work better.
With relation RWE, is he the editor or the author? You might find that you simply have listed as linking to Nature as the journal, have some commentary there, that links to each volume, rather than link to each volume from the author page. Otherwise, we would just disambiguate Nature by some means, eg. Nature (1836 - vol. 1); Nature (1836 - vol. 2); Nature (1836 - vol. 3), etc. or Nature (1836), Nature (1837), ... billinghurst (talk) 03:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at it. I'm not keen on the multi-column version as it doesn't work very well on the small-screen laptop I'm using.

For the author - RWE is the author of this book. The periodical didn't appear until 1869. Nature is a disambiguation page. I think I'll list the two as a sublist. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Good call, then disambiguate the title of each work and add them to the {{disambiguation}} page. Distinct and specific names however your logic applies, and list them individually on Author page. billinghurst (talk) 04:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Just spotted that new user Kees has been proofreading pages that are already validated and marking them as proofread. Presumably this is because his browser is showing the pages as not proofread. Is there a way of gently disposing of these or shall I go back in and validate them along behind him? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I should be able to undo to your version, and that should be sufficient. billinghurst (talk)

Fixed, and I have been through and null edited all the pages as they needed forcing to renew their status with the Index: page, which is the overarching problem. billinghurst (talk) 03:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Meetup magic

So Magnus had these two things to say. About automated link piping, he said it could be done in javascript in a browser. On persondata he thought that the template, as used systematically on deWP, was a bit too "floppy" in dealing with technical data issues such a name variants to be something really serious. The idea he liked for here with this, relating to our disambiguation problem for people, was this: a template for a person designed with a clickable part. If you clicked you could have revealed to you, transcluded, the various relevant biographies.

Beyond my scope. There is a bit of that available via one of the WP tools, however, I couldn't get it neatly configured, and the developer didn't deign to reply to my plaintive cries.

Actually he had something of his own to suggest. Namely, that a DNB biography article (say) should display somehow links back to the pages from which it is built up by transclusion. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It does, look on the left hand side under toolbox for the toggle. This is for all transcluded pages/

display options
   * links to scans

billinghurst (talk) 10:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Times

Oh yes, using it already. I intend to send EAM to DYKnow for the main page and maybe get some exposure for the work. Do feel free to join it with the WP article too. Copyediting after my scattergun approach to article creation is always useful and I see you have done quite a bit already. thx 08:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC) —unsigned comment by Victuallers (talk) .

I have found that my strength is researching, finding, then maybe transcribing. It isn't creative interesting writing at WP.<shrug> billinghurst (talk) 10:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the award

Thank you for noting my (meagre) edits. Just makes me think again that Wikisource is my favourite WMF project.  :-)

— Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 05:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Most welcome. BTW no edits are meagre! PotM is meant to be fun and hopefully a little rewarding. Do feel that you are welcome to think of a nomination for some time. billinghurst (talk) 10:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

And thanks from me also. Unexpected acknowledgement is strangely pleasant. Moondyne (talk) 11:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Ta. Hesperian 11:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Template:qif

I can't believe you deleted template:qif! I can't believe you deleted template:qif! What is template:qif? I don't know either, but it is an important part of Template:Note label, some kind of footnoting scheme that is used in Juvenal's Satire 1 and possibly others, that quits and gives a nasty redlink when template:qif is absent. ResScholar (talk) 07:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

That was discussed with Pathoschild as it was in the ancient code list (pre Parser) and supposedly now redundant. He said we could and should be looking to do better. Tell me what you want it do to and I will get the bot to upgrade. We definitely want to do better than that. Should we be looking to <ref> or some other attribution? billinghurst (talk) 07:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

All I know is that one day the reference system on the wiki changed so you didn't have to manage numbers in text and numbers at the end separately. That's the only advance I know of, so that's all I know from which to suggest. Thanks for the use of your bot. I'm just doing license cleanup and ran into some various related cleanup problems. ResScholar (talk) 08:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Done Replaced instances with {{ref}} and {{note}}. Deleted qif and two related templates. billinghurst (talk)

Ambiguous DNB contributor templates

I have done a pass through these, and all the small roman numerals i-xxii should now read as 1-63 + Supplement. There was one instance of dab not needed (error in the front matter list of writers in the DNB); and a few of the dabbing templates have been retired, e.g. for TS where Thomas Seccombe wrote 654 articles, and Sinclair wrote just one (easier to put in by hand and forget about it all). For MB it looks as if there was an inaccuracy in the 22-volume edition; anyway the template now explains everything. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcomes! :) and POTM?

Hi! Nice to be welcomed, not once, but twice! (I didn't bother logging in this time, and was greeted on my IP talk page.)

Not sure what the award was for, though. I participated in something without even knowing it?

I'm basically a Wikisource leech, using it as a resource for materials that I can't be bothered getting in dead-tree form, and Wikisource tends to have the things I'm looking for, in clear and readable form. But when I come across little irksome things like missing spaces, I copyedit so the next person doesn't have to be irked. I'm not big in the whole community thing, and I don't add huge amounts of content, but if something needs copyediting, I'll do it.

Rosuav (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Coolness! :) Rosuav (talk) 00:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the help. Very useful to know. I have a lot of experience on wikipedia, but I've not done much here (although I've had an account for ages), so I'm not totally familiar with everything you can do with the markup and templates here (much less need for such things on wikipedia.) John Kenney (talk) 05:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for the pointers. At the moment I've just been manually transcribing various Browning poems. I'll probably get to other public domain poets as the mood strikes me - I just happen to have a volume of Browning to hand and thought I'd put in some poems. John Kenney (talk) 06:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Offline Wiki installation

Hi. This is regarding my question in irc chat about an offline Wiki installation. I found it, and in case you're interested, it's offered by MediaWiki here. However, the implementation of the idea is a lot longer than I would devote to at this moment, but will revisit it at a later time. Sleep well — Ineuw (talk) 17:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The setting up of a wiki while not a mammoth task is still a significant undertaking and does require one to have a linux box, installation of scripting languages, and database application, then the configuration of the components. Not something that I have my head around, nor likely to anytime soon. billinghurst (talk) 09:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how to describe this question!

Florence Earle Coates’ collection of poetry—Poems (1916, in 2 Vols.)—contains many poems which were published in her previous collections. Many poems have slight changes that have been made to them between publications, and many saw no changes applied at all. I have chosen to combine each of these poems under single titles/Wikisource pages by using a method whereby I can achieve the following:

1. Eliminate the need to create more than one page for a single poem that has undergone changes (minor or major) over time;
2. Maintain continuity of poem order for Wikisource browsing of corresponding source texts (i.e., "previous"/"next");
3. Illustrate any discrepancies/changes made to poems over time.

Examples

An example of a poem that has undergone changes between publications can be found here: Sappho;

and a poem that has undergone NO changes between publications (still necessary to achieve browsing continuity) can be seen here: Immortal.

I am hoping that the usefulness/purposefulness outweighs the "busy-ness" of the page, and I am open to suggestions on how I can change or improve this method. I have already applied this method to the first 10 or so poem titles listed on the Poems (1898) page, and you can compare the page links with the corresponding poems from Poems Vol. I (1916) and Poems Vol. II (1916). I will temporarily cease making such applications until I hear from an administrator as to the viability of this option. I do not want to put more effort into making these changes if a better, more efficient solution is available. Anxiously awaiting your input or referral... OR your confession of confusion as to what I'm trying to explain here :)! Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

There is not an agreed community position on what to do about different versions of works that were continually developed by authors. It is also not one that is one on which I have spent a lot of time beyond use of the template {{versions}} Hesperian and Cygnis both have done work in that field and they may care to provide a more informed opinion. billinghurst (talk) 09:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

With regards to Sappho, I would

1. [DONE! See: Poems (Coates 1916)] Create Poems (Coates) as a page that does nothing but link to /Volume 1 and /Volume 2. For an example see The miscellaneous botanical works of Robert Brown
2. [DONE! See:Poems (Coates 1916)/Volume I] Move Poems Volume I (Coates 1916) to Poems (Coates)/Volume 1
3. [DONE! See:Poems (Coates 1916)/Volume II] Move Poems Volume II (Coates 1916) to Poems (Coates)/Volume 2
4. Create Poems (1898)/Sappho
5. Create Poems (Coates)/Volume 2/Sappho

RE: Recommendation #s 4 & 5: I am trying to refrain from creating multiple pages for different poem versions. Doesn't recommendation #6 take care of that with a side-by-side version page? (see:Sappho (Coates))

1. [DONE! See: Sappho (Coates)] Convert Sappho (Coates) into a page that transcludes the two versions side-by-side.

Hesperian 13:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Can someone now please delete the following pages:

• Poems Volume I (Coates 1916)
  
• Poems Volume II (Coates 1916)
  

My head is now spinning with templates, codes, and HTML... How do you guys do this? Time for a coffee!

Londonjackbooks(talk) 15:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. Question ... Did you miss out on the new template wiki brain splash upgrade? Shame. ;-) billinghurst (talk) 11:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Must have been a limited-time-only offer. Bummer... Maybe next year! Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)