User talk:DeirdreAnne/2011

Agrippa

Hi! Thanks for the update on the Three Books of Occult Philosophy. I'd mostly been working on images and tables in Book 2, so I'm a little sorry to see them disappear (for now), but the text was due for an overhaul anyway. I also appreciate your clarifying Match and Split, though I still don't quite understand it all yet. I have been scarce here, and I'm not sure how often I'll get the chance, but hopefully I can add my name to the list of proofreaders at some point! Lusanaherandraton (talk) 04:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I (finally) got a chance to see your last note. If I understand you right, you're suggesting to go through the pages and make sure the text is aligned at top and bottom with the scans, and if there is some text missing, type it in (as long as I delete the same text from the next/previous page, where it doesn't belong). Since you said not to mark aligned pages as proofed just yet, is there some way to mark them as aligned-but-not-yet-proofed? And of course, if I've misunderstood you, please correct my misapprehensions! Lusanaherandraton (talk) 21:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Doug/Sandbox6

Check it out. Also, check out the last few revisions for variations. --Eliyak T·C 00:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Re:Generating a list of pages

I believe this will do what you need:

import pagegenerators

FILE= open("test.dat",'w')

for page in pagegenerators.PrefixingPageGenerator(prefix = "Popular Science Monthly"):
    FILE.write("[[" + page.title() + "]]\n")

FILE.close()

Also, note that PrefixingPageGenerator takes the following arguments (values such as "None" are the defaults):

PrefixingPageGenerator(prefix, namespace=None, includeredirects=True, site=None)

--Eliyak T·C 15:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Bot flag on it.source

Dear Doug,

every single interwiki-bot on wikisource is a blessing. I don't think there's any problem about the flag but you'll have to wait some three four days: in the meantime would you please try some bot actions to assure other users about your statements and ability? I know it's an act of awful bureaucray but since your bot is not a global bot it's included in the package. - εΔω 06:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello Doug, you bot has been flagged. Welcome on it.source and good work! Ciao, Candalua (talk) 11:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

ru:Викитека:Заявки на изменение прав#Статус бота / Bot status

Hello! Draw your attention there. -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 07:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Index:Bacons Essays 1908 West.djvu

Hi, I just started looking at this work to do Match & Split. However, I can't find a mainspace text to match it with. Can you give me a clue? The reason I'm asking is that you marked it as "Ready for Match & Split" on 20 January. Cheers, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• Hmm, that was an error, I thought it went with the Bacon text we had but others commented that the text we had was another annotation, so I went and got that one. Pointers in a minute.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 07:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
• You want Essays, civil and moral (Harvard Classics) which goes with one section of Index:The Harvard Classics Vol. 3.djvu, for more information see Essays (Francis Bacon).--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 07:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

bot flag on vec

Hi Doug, you got my approval, of course. But given the small number of interwiki links on vec, you probably don't even need the flag. Feel free to run your bot on vec, when it starts doing many edits I will give it the flag. A question: how do you deal with duplicate interwikies and interwikies to disambig pages? I've did some work with my own bot in the last days, and to my surprise I found that on some subdomains they are not only allowed but also recommended in certain cases... but obviously Pywikipediabot tries to remove them :-( Candalua (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is a problem, ru.ws seems particularly fond of duplicate interwiki links. Personally, I am very careful about running the bot on mainspace pages for this reason and always run on -confirm. You may want to look at this discussion: Викитека:Заявки_на_изменение_прав#Interwiki-Bot with some discussion here: Wikisource:Scriptorium#Interwiki-Bot, as well. I really don't understand the theory either, I can see that we might want to link eg en:Book A (1845) to a disambiguation (or versions really) page for fr:Book A (1830)/fr:Book A (1833)/fr:Book A (1837). But some of what is being done makes absolutely no sense to me.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 05:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Benefits

.... of inter-wiki bots in relation to WS, I'm asking here, because I believe this merits its own section and should not have been construed & framed in one context while partially mis-construed in another elsewhwere. My prefence is that the entire planet contributes directly to en.WS first and all other concerns, including inter-wiki bots, come after the lost libraries of Alexandria have been at least proofread. I know - completely unreasonable. My preference nevertheless. A preference, btw, is not always sound practice and hardly ever good policy.

Having clarified what I meant elsewhere as only my individual warped preference and not the reality in wiki foundations, I've come to realize I need a tutorial on what exactly is taking place by these interlanguage links and some related points I'm no longer so sure about.

First - what exactly is the reason to tag templates in one language by another exactly? I don't see the logic at work behind that but I may be making a wrong assumption or two that could benefit from someone rehashing inter-language links in brief at the same time. — George Orwell III (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I've been thinking about exactly how and how much to answer this for several days. Since you end with a paragraph starting with "First", I'll keep it rather short on the assumption there will be follow up. (after note: not so short after all, I'm having trouble lately with conciseness :-) ).

I agree, tagging templates doesn't add much value, though it does add some. Outside of the mainspace iw-links are primarily navigational aids for those who work in multiple languages or who are familiar with one language subspace but want to get involved in another (which doesn't necessarily mean they understand the language, I'm heavily involved in la.ws - most prolific editor by far in the past couple months - yet I list myself as la-0 and that's not being modest ;-) ). The interwiki links are particularly helpful in Help and Project space as well as Portal space if it exists and maybe template space. They are also useful on special pages though they have to be added by individual admins. I find they are quite useful in userspace for me to navigate by, but that's a personal thing that I sort of discovered by testing my bot. As I discuss above with another user, they are problematic in the mainspace and aren't really easy to use a bot on, though they can be quite useful. They could be used in index space theoretically though I can't see a use for them in pagespace. The only application would be in a multilingual work and {{iwpage}} is better for that. They can be useful in authorspace but I think there is a better answer. Personally, I think the sidebar language links are not very helpful on texts or authorspace, the first page of a text and any author or {{versions}} page (and maybe any pure dab) should have express links to other languages. I think we should prefer express links when they are at all suitable as they are much clearer to those who may be here just to read. So in this respect, I differ from many. I've often heard people imply that these iw-links are somehow valuable to people who are learning a language, they may be, but in my opinion this is largely obviated by the location in the sidebar making them largely useless to non-editors. For editors I think they are great though I only really got involved in them because of a request.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 18:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

So pretty much what I've assumed all along. Just a quick-follow up - why do some choose to tag the template rather than the template documentation - I thought that was a no-no? — George Orwell III (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't really know, I know that Interwiki-Bot hasn't tagged any templatespace pages period, at least not on en and I don't think it has anywhere (sometimes there are strange cross-over spaces and spaces used incorrectly or oddly on some small projects) but I'm going to take a guess that they didn't understand the potential problems of tagging a template or they didn't understand how their bot worked (or they just plain made a mistake). If someone on another language linked to one of our templates instead of the /doc, it could throw off every other one the next time someone ran a bot if they weren't paying attention. I would note though that outside of the large projects, a separate /doc page is often nowhere to be seen, the documentation is simply noincluded on the main template page. The bot won't normally place the tags inside noincludes but it could - which probably isn't a bad idea, you'd (almost) never want to include them and transcluding a page other than a template would have the same negative effect. I may submit a bug report for that or see if I can hack it myself. I think the bot could easily wrap the tags in noincludes as it normally asks to resequences them alphabetically and/or to move them below anything else on the page, so it knows where the top and bottom of the list are - or at least it knows where the top is. I say "almost" above because of mainpages, on de.ws the language links are all on a transcluded subpage, but mainpages normally have to be done by hand anyway. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've tidied up HWS & HWE since I recently witnessed those being improperly tagged but I am unable to locate the others in the amount of time I have. I'll try some more later. — George Orwell III (talk) 23:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

You are an Administrator

Congrats! --BirgitteSB 14:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Birgitte and thank you to all those who participated in the discussion/vote.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 16:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: Help with Hebrew

It is illegible to me too. Can you email the jp2? --Eliyak T·C 21:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:UsersSpeak

You speedy-deleted {{UsersSpeak}} as redundant. Could you tell me what template it was redundant to, so I can replace the instances where UsersSpeak was in use? Thanks. - Htonl (talk) 00:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

It was redundant in purpose to babel templates but it was essentially unused, used only on a minority of languages (it wasn't used on en), and inductiveload was removing it, he was just slow and didn't do until after I'd deleted it ;-). It doesn't need to be replaced.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 07:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I see. Thanks! :) - Htonl (talk) 12:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

unsigned

Did you want to leave this unsigned; a straight question, because for me it is, as you say, "kein problem" :-) CYGNIS INSIGNIS 19:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, no I did not. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Re:IRC

Doug, I still want to learn how to edit Wikisource. This was a nice suggestion of yours and I definetly will help out here. We still need to create the sanskrit language babel box though. :-P. :-) --Thepoliticalmaster (talk) 16:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and I'm not saying I won't talk to you, I'm saying don't PM me. Don't PM anybody. And by the way, I don't think I suggested you edit Wikisource, I fixed your user page because it had a help template on it and gave you some ideas. There's a lot to be done. Just get to work :) If you need suggestions on pages to work on, let me know and I'll give you plenty. The biggest thing is the initial proofread of text, you can do a lot to help in that area. Don't worry about formatting right now. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 16:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Template:New texts

2 for 4!

Wow! I just noticed that two out of four of the works you consider unhelpful and problematic here are pieces that I put up! :) While I realize that the pieces are orphans, so to speak, I would definitely appreciate feedback on why they might have made your list (only interested in the technical aspect, however!). That would be helpful to me, as I have quite a few other "orphaned" pieces relating to Mrs. Coates (Earle, Jr. is her brother) that may need to have some work done on them to get them to "best practice" status... I am all ears! Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

LOL, sorry, that is out of date and wasn't necessarily referring to the broad content and presentation, I will make some notes on the list regarding (and in large part to remind me) what the problem was.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I just looked in detail, it had nothing to do with content and everything to do with my attempt to capture the use of some really dumb sister links that were all over the place. These were particularly ironic examples that I wanted to save. Sorry, if you thought there was a problem with your work - I just need to make clearer notes.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It is your page, after all! :) What went through my mind was twofold: the sensible side of me thought that if there were technical aspects about the pages that could be made better, I am "all ears" about that (my work here could use some refining)!... The "devilish" side of me wondered whether you took (subjective/opinionated) issue with the content! Not that you wouldn't have been entitled to your opinion, of course! :) Thanks for the reply, Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, it may be my page but I don't own it. ;-) I've noticed that's just one of a few works that were not migrated to the new system of sisterlinks as part of the header. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I may have more; I'll check my "works about" pages. BTW, is the [related_author =] notation (in header) what is currently being used? Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, see here: Template:Header#Sister, related author, and portal wiki links.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I replaced Matthew Arnold (Coates, 1909), To Florence Earle Coates (Stedman), Tribute to James Whitcomb Riley, Testimony of George H. Earle, Jr. (7 Feb 1891), The Wizardry of George H. Earle, Jr., George H. Earle, Jr., Doctor to Ailing Corporations, Matthew Arnold (Coates, 1894). The only one left is Author:George Howard Earle, Jr., which needs a different solution, see below.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec) OK, I see, {{Wikisource author}} is in use on Author:George Howard Earle, Jr. in a subsection, not the header and it's not on a work. I'm guessing the others are similar. That's not so bad, but I have at least two problems with these templates, besides the fact that personally I think they're ugly, 1) "by or about" which is it? or is it both? and 2) what if we had works by or about each of the authors on that section, we'd have to make the section deeper just to add the boxes. I'll admit, I'm prejudiced against them because of their insulting location and usage on en.wp - and maybe because of the ironic usage noted on the two works mentioned above. Do you have any thoughts on how we could make more useful (and perhaps prettier) sister links for things like this. I'm wondering about the other sort of links used (rarely well) on en.wp: w:template:ws. They are similar to used commonly over there for NIE and Encyclopedia Americana; in fact, I'm wondering if we may want to put the little ws logo on those here too, to really emphasize that we hold the work and that it's not just a link to the description on wikipedia or an external link (which not all users would know normally have the arrow on them here). Thoughts?--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Yup, it was placed in a subsection of Earle's author page back in January, and I think I remember following suit thereafter on some other pages, thinking it was useful and being practiced... Didn't give much thought to it then or since. My sense of "style" is unfortunately less refined and more cUmBeRsOmE. I try to be a minimalist, but I like INFORMATION so much that you often can't see the trees for the forest when I "design." I'm probably not the best judge, but I'll consider the links and let you know if I have any ideas! Thanks for taking care of the "works about" pages I was talking about... I was pulled away from the computer by real life for a bit! Oh... it's about the third time I've seen it now: what does "(ec)" stand for? Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec) = "edit conflict" a very common occurrence over on en.wp, especially on the noticeboards. Sometimes I see (ec*5) and that sort of thing over there in drama land.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Is it User-placed? Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you just put it there to indicate that you wrote your reply and hit enter only to find there were more comments and your post may not address them. It can help avoid misunderstandings especially in a conversation that has more than two people in it. ;-)--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. noted. Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

multiple iw

Hi Doug, I have some good news for the issue of multiple interwikies: unfortunately it seems impossibile to manage them without nearly rewriting interwiki.py from scratch. But at least I was able to make it check for duplicated interwikies, and if one is found the page is skipped and the bot goes on. I've just run it through the entire ns0 starting from it.source, a lot of pages were skipped and on the remaining pages it worked fairly well! If you're interested I can send you the modified code. Candalua (talk) 17:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Certainly! I'll e-mail you to give you my e-mail. Thanks! --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 18:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Metadata

A rough draft of the metadata importing script is now live at User:Inductiveload/Metadata form.js. Link it to your JS and give it a whirl on any page with a "source" tab at the top. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 15:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Manifesto

Hello, I've left a detailed message regarding the matter at User talk:Inductiveload#Manifesto with most of the important links that I found. Thanks for all your help.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 21:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Djvulibre

Thanks, & it worked. Of course it wouldn't be any of the obvious commands like 'make'.Misarxist (talk) 16:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Dashes, Hyphens, and Minuses

Thank you for the further info on some of the distinctions. "Everything I need to know I learned in kindergarten" = not true :) In all my various phases of education (up through Bachelors degree at University), including a high school print shop class, I haven't had exposure to that level of detail on the nuances of the punctuation characters available. As a believer in the importance of detail and in the importance of being correct, I will appreciate learning more by participation in the Wikisource project! Lini (talk) 15:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Jerome Agreement

I saw what you did over at Jerome Agreement. I just want to make sure you understand what I would eventually like to see at the end. And probably only because I'm so new at this, do I even have to bring it up. Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock is the example I come up with most readily - and it's related to the Jerome Agreement. At the end of the entire process, I would like to see the Jerome Agreement to be its own page so I can do a link to Wikipedia pages. What are the possibilities of this happening? Maile66 (talk) 23:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• The mainspace page is the page that you reference, it is the Jerome Agreement's "own page" and the one that should be linked as a reference on Wikipedia. In fact, I already created the link from this end, which is generally a bad practice (to create links to wikipedia where no article exists) but I found that it was an existing redlink in the article w:Comanche and I sort of expected you were about to create it. You can see it in the header. The page space is where we do the editing, which does a number of things, but primarily it means our works are verifiable in a way that no other website provides on such a scale. It also reduces vandalism, since most vandals wouldn't even find their way to the pagespace and if they did we could protect the whole set without worry, once they are complete, since when a work is done here, it's pretty much done, unlike Wikipedia where editors can create new content and refine continuously. So, bottom line: do all editing and 99% of formatting in the page space, do not link to pagespace from outside wikisource, link to Jerome agreement of 1892.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 03:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks for all your help and guidance for this Wikisource Newbie. The Jerome agreement here at Wikisource is one piece of a larger whole I am indeed attempting to create. The more layers I uncover, the more additional layers I discover on this Native American issue. The Jerome Agreement redlink is also in other Wikipedia articles, and part of the (yet unwritten) overall Cherokee Commission aka Jerome Commission, that legally took the lands of several Native American tribes, and ultimately played a role in the creation of the state of Oklahoma. Wikipedia articles concerning the Comanche seem to have a high rate of vandalism. I appreciate the tighter controls established at Wikisource. Maile66 (talk) 14:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• Doug, please have a look at my Wikipedia Sandbox. A work in progress. Just from the Contents, I think you can see that the Jerome Agreement must be a lot more than just the Wikisource page that was set up (which only deals with the Sac and Fox portion). I think a mistake has been made here. Do you want to delete the Jerome Agreement 1892 page that was set up? I leave it up to you. Maile66 (talk) 01:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

  OK, we could delete it or tag it as {{incomplete}}. Does what is there have value in itself? Or is it out of context and not useful as a source for Wikipedia the way it is? Does the actual Jerome Agreement simply continue on in the Statutes or is it broken up into different parts of the law that would need to be compiled into the Agreement (In which case the codified statutes probably aren't the best thing to link to).--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 08:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Pardon... fwiw- I've been running every lead to ground on this ever since that first day this came up on WS:S. As far as I can tell, there is no such formal or legal agreement. 'Jerome Agreement of 1892' might be a popular name, commonly recognized as such over time, that may refer to some statute or group of stautes, but the actual timeline of events is far more complex than initially led to believe can be found in a single compact. There are dozens of related statutes & acts by Congress (before and after 1892) that affect the 5 or 6 tribes being mentioned specifically so far, so I'm not sure what's best to do here at the moment.

From all that I've read on this, its clear that the best approach is to start with the tribe & their history as the root and not the years some law passed or treaty was signed. David Jerome is just a cog in the machine it seems; he appears in several negotiations and similar efforts on behalf of the Government at the turn of the century. By the time we get to the definitive Supreme Court rulings in 1903-1904, the 1892 stuff has been pretty much in a state of evolving flux up until ~1901 when a laundry list of Indian "affairs" went into full effect - which included numerous tribes, not just 2 or 3 - though those 2 or 3 might have gotten hosed while other tribes did not (or they didn't act on it in a timely manner). -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the input George Orwell. Maile66 can you give some thoughts? Personally, I'm looking at this purely as a technical helper and I want to make sure you feel your contributions are important and that we do whatever we can to help you document existing sources. I have no real interest in the topic nor knowledge of the events. George if you see some action that's appropriate, please take it. I'm not in the least attached to this and unlike you, my research has been limited to looking at one Wikipedia article to see if it linked here and trying to match existing mainspace content to an existing scan of the statute. If there is no "Jerome Agreement" per se, then the mainspace content probably needs to be either moved and reorganized or deleted.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 12:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Or is what you are saying that we just need to rename the current content to "Sac and Fox Agreement" and move on?--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 12:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

My only objective is just to have the text of the treaties on Wikisource, eventually linking to whatever I end up naming the Wikipedia page I create. Rename to "Sac and Fox Agreement" as "Incomplete" is probably best. Whatever Congress or the courts named the document, that's what it is. Don't even put a year on it in the title. In some cases, what the treaty parties signed off on was amended by Congress before it was ever enacted into law. Subsequent lawsuits and rulings into the mid-to-late 20th Century, also. Some of these you have, such as Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock. When I first mentioned this to Wikisource, I was under the impression there was actually one document called the Jerome Agreement. Books and Wikipedia pages refer to it. I now doubt anything was officially named Jerome Agreement.

George, what this all ties in to is one singular Presidential commission that was formed to legally push the native Americans off their land to make way for the white homesteaders when Oklahoma was transitioning from a territory to a state. Not as much about the individual tribes, as it just happened to impact all 12-15 bands that had reservations there. It lasted slightly more than four years. You have the link to my Sandbox. I intend to create a singular Wikipedia page out of that, most likely named for the Commission itself. Maile66 (talk) 14:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Email

You've got mail :) Steven Zhang (talk) 02:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

And again. Steven Zhang (talk) 04:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Preparation for Roman History

How long would it take you to go through and make headings and title stuff? Then I could go in and add my system of proofing the text? - Tannertsf (talk) 14:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Let's scratch the Cicero book(s) for now, unless you've found a good one already. I have found Sheldon Amos' Political and legal remedies for war (1880) on the IA, and it looks good for me to do. We don't have any books by him yet, so that would be a good addition. Heres the link: http://www.archive.org/details/politicallegalre00amosuoft - could you set it up and get everything ready for transclusion? - Tannertsf (talk) 00:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

An apology

While not "redacting" my stated principles on certain other matters, I have been thinking much of the day about the phrase "benefit of the doubt", and it would be dishonest of me to say that I had given the benefit of the doubt to you. In all honesty, I did let my biases cloud my judgment as to what I supposed your intentions were with regard to your email & etc., and for that, I am sorry. Sincerely, Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Clean up

I did not archive Wikisource:Proposed_deletions#Template:Bible_versions_and_Template:Bible_versions_2, assuming you might want to finish the outlined steps first. Jeepday (talk) 17:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

• OK, thanks. I'll try to get around to botting out the templates shortly then I'll delete them.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 15:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)