User talk:Ineuw/Archives/2012-07-01

Categories and SUBPAGE name

Hi. Regarding your post on WS:S, this is something I did (and dared to run) before holidays: bot trial. --Mpaa (talk) 17:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Please forgive me for "jumping the gun". Didn't expect you to return until Wednesday, and thought of asking because I was very curious. Also because I refined the sort with a more relevant key and wanted to make sure that the bot recognizes this. It is in reference to changes in the Category:Animals sort keys where instead of the SUBPAGENAME I used the actual animal name, like |elephant etc. In any case welcome back.— Ineuw talk 19:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the welcome-back :-)

I am not sure I understood the new requirements. If with "wanted to make sure that the bot recognizes this", you mean the presence (but not the exact value) of the sort key then I think it is OK. Otherwise it needs to be re-thought.

What I (believe) I can do is:

1. if [[Category:Popular Science Monthly Volume 7]] -> leave as is

2. if Category has no sort key (e.g. [[Category:Navigation]]) -> add SUBPAGENAME => [[Category:Navigation|{{SUBPAGENAME}}]]

3. if Category has sort key (e.g. [[Category:Navigation|Ships]]) -> leave as is

I gave some thoughts about categorisation with {{SUBPAGENAME}}. Isn't there the risk that in the end many articles will fall under T due that many start with "The ..."? --Mpaa (talk) 20:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Your points 1, 2, 3 are perfect! That's exactly what I meant. As for the word "The", I agree with you completely, What if we don't use SUBPAGENAME where the name begins with "The" and sort it by the second word of the title? . . . . as in where the title is:

"The Action of Massage Upon the Muscles"

[[Category:Physiology|Action]]

[[Category:Health|Action]]

We only need a single word to get it out of the default "P" sort key. Is this possible?— Ineuw talk 20:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately not with the approach I am using now. So far I have not written any specific code, only reused existing scripts from Mediawiki. I just do a "search and replace" of strings. So I do not evaluate SUBPAGENAME, I just add it where it is missing.

2 Options: 1) write specific code, 2) what if, when generating the header of the page your program adds a Defaultsort tag with the proper name, to be automatically used by Category? Drawback: it will be applicable only for future pages and we should think a bit carefully if it could create conflicts if some template has an embedded Defaultsort tag. Then we will take care of the existing pages starting with "The".

Note that the same applies to "A", "An", etc. :-( --Mpaa (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I follow and agree with you completely. I think that we should take a step back for a while and think about this. I am very strongly against the use of the DEFAULTSORT parameter, as I had problems with it on the commons, when I realized what it's doing. In the meanwhile, I can add a procedure to experiment with volume 45 article titles and examine the results.— Ineuw talk 21:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

This might be helpful to get an overview of current categorisation:

http://en.wikisource.org/w/api.php?action=query&generator=categorymembers&gcmtitle=Category:Popular_Science_Monthly_Volume_28&gcmlimit=max&prop=categories&cllimit=max&clshow=!hidden&clprop=sortkey

Forget abot the sortkey and focus on the sortkeyprefix parameter (at the very right of the page ...) :-) You can change the volume to see the volume you prefer. If you need it, I could write a script to extract a dB of current categorisation of articles in previous volumes. Based on your results on Vol 45 and current status, we could figure out the best way forward and how to take care of the previous volumes. Bye --Mpaa (talk) 22:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Wonderful, many thanks for this insight. — Ineuw talk 22:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

PSM V47 image names

Hi. In case you are not aware, I think pictures names in this Vol. starting from D590 (included) have an offset of 2 compared to Djvu numbering. I was not able to locate picture from D872 onwards in Djvu. Shall they be used with current numbering or are to be renamed? No hurry, just to know. Bye --Mpaa (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I realized it when I was building the TOC and the Index, and decided to correct them when I got there. Please don't use them with the incorrect numbers. If you have the time, move them and the old is to be tagged for deletion using {{Speedy}}. I use a single description for all: "Incorrectly numbered by Internet Archive", or something like that. As for the missing image(s), I find the page online, enlarge it 5 times, then copy the page, process and upload it. Thanks for reminding me.— Ineuw talk 22:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Moved all the image to correct the .djvu number shift and corrected the dame here on volume 47.— Ineuw talk 05:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Done

Additional info on Authors

Hi. I think I found additional info on Author:C._Fievez. See [1]. What is the procedure in this case? A move leaving the redirect or do you fix also the what links here? --Mpaa (talk) 21:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I move the page and leave the original as a redirect.— Ineuw talk 21:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Ineuw/Sandbox9

Hi. Do not bother to change this list when you rename pages. I regenerate automatically every now and then. Unles you need to do it for some special reason. That page is a mean to understand where we need to disambiguate redirects. I am borrowing your Snadbox. If it bothers you, we can do one on PSM project. Bye --Mpaa (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. It doesn't bother me at all, and there is no charge for the use of my sandboxes. :-)— Ineuw talk 21:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Mea culpa. Late at (my) night I ended up moving the contents to Wikisource:WikiProject Popular Science Monthly/Sandbox 1 because I've also done a lot of work with the titles that need corrections. I pasted the results into two of my sandboxes:

• User:Ineuw/Sandbox2
• User:Ineuw/Sandbox8

I think we should discuss these and I need you to explain to me the moved data.— Ineuw talk 06:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Fine. Not 100% clear to me though what you need me to explain. I cannot remember having done substantial moves, except a few deletion requests due to duplicate articles. Can you elaborate a bit better :-) ?--Mpaa (talk) 11:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Went though the lists. One thought on the redirects: do you think is really needed to have the month in the title of the redicts? That makes difficult to use them (e.g. sorting is a problem). Can you explain the rationale for this need? --Mpaa (talk) 11:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

My sincere apologies for the confusion caused by a very late night. I removed the dates immediately. I trimmed the data incorrectly and didn't notice my error. Unfortunately nowadays, I am occupied in the mornings with personal matters and trying to make up for time lost which extends into very late hours at night and this causes a degree of distraction.

About Wikisource:WikiProject Popular Science Monthly/Sandbox 1: I went over the list again carefully, and realized that they are, either disambiguation pages, or non existent articles. I now understand what the intent was. I replaced the words "not a redirect" with "disambiguation page" for better clarity for myself. I know that my changes will disappear with the next generated list. 22:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Your changes will stay, I updated my script. --Mpaa (talk) 23:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

One more thing that came to my mid with these changes. Articles, esp. sketches, might be referenced in en.WP. So we need to be careful with the redirects. It is almost impossible to detect what is linked there. --Mpaa (talk) 00:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I've made numerous links in WP until I soured on the idea just to stop the arguments and the negativity. Linking incomplete articles to Wikipedia earned me another nasty post from CI. So, I stopped doing it. Another part of history, I guess. — Ineuw talk 01:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Overall changes overview for PSM

Hi. Take a look at this page. If you find it useful, we might copy it on PSM project page. Not the best as readability :-( but best I could manage. Bye --Mpaa (talk) 23:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Are they the same?

Hi. I am cleaning up Author ns. You might have noticed that I found some duplicates. Here I have a doubt as they list different articles, even though the subject is the same: Author:H._de_Lacaze_Duthiers and Author:Henri de Lacaze-Duthiers. All the others had the same article listed and then I managed that. --Mpaa (talk) 00:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they are the same. I am correcting them as you find them. Thank you. — Ineuw talk 01:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Two additional ones: Author:François-Étienne_de_La_Roche and Author:Étienne_de_La_Roche. I think that François-Étienne_de_La_Roche is wrong, dates do not match. The author must be Estienne de La Roche or Étienne de La Roche. As you can see this matches. Let me know your opinion and we will fix this. --Mpaa (talk) 01:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct. The correct author is Author:Étienne de La Roche born in 1480 noted here. The article is from 1538 which is noted next to the author's name on Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 25.djvu/557. Estienne de La Roche was born in 1470 and died in 1530, 8 years before publication. Furthermore, Étienne also refers to Estienne as "Master". I doubt if he would have referred to himself so. Thanks for your help. — Ineuw talk 03:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Titles

How come you're changing the titles of works away from what they are actually titled? Popular Science Monthly/Volume 1/June 1872/Sketch of Charles Lyell is quite clearly entitled "Sir Charles Lyell", and I can't think of a single decent reason to move it from that to "Sketch of Charles Lyell". Hesperian 05:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying. Wasn't avoiding you, it's just that life is a bit hectic temporarily and this delays the response. But, at least, now I know how to get your instant attention. :-)

The above change was the result of a three part issue, one of which raised by User:Bob Burkhardt and the rest followed from me.

BB changed one of the bio article titles to include periods in the abbreviations and this is something I would NOT revert to. Even though there is pertinent info online about my convention, on the second look, I agreed with his view that in the context of titles, it did look weird and sought a satisfactory middle ground by the following:

1. Replacing all abbreviated names with the full names.

Primary motivation is the inordinate time spent searching for resolving initials for authors. I want to save future (re)searchers the agony by providing the full name.

2. Dropping all professional and honorific titles, prefixes and suffixes, in line with Wikipedia and our author namespace naming conventions. For example, most confusing is the application of the letter "M" preceding French names. . . like "M Paul Broca".

Secondary consideration for titles etc., was the fact that every one on the list had some or all of it, with the exception of Thomas Alva Edison.

3 Adding the word "Sketch of" where there is only a name.

Admittedly, adding "Sketch of" is a bit of a stretch, but I followed the original's conventions. Of the 312 biographical sketches up to Volume 50, 260 use the words. Furthermore, from volume 25 on, in almost all cases, the original publication used the "Sketch" and the full name, without prefixes, suffixes, or titles.

Finally, I value your advice. I stopped biographical article title changes, and I am preparing another list which displays the original and my proposals for your approval. — Ineuw talk 06:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

P.S: I will continue with the replacements of the hyphenated article titles.

I disagree with moving pages from their actual titles to some arbitrary standard you're imposing as editor. I had no plans to intervene; I'm comfortable with disagreeing with you and still leaving you in peace to go about your business.

But I think that asking for deletion of redirects from actual titles is a bridge too far. The purpose of redirects is to take people where they want to go when that is obvious. If a reader types "Sketch of Professor C F Hartt‎" into the search box, surely it is beyond dispute that they want the PSM article entitled "Sketch of Professor C F Hartt‎", and therefore they should be taken to the page that contains that article. Therefore a redirect from Sketch of Professor C F Hartt to Popular Science Monthly/Volume 13/June 1878/Sketch of Charles Frederic Hartt is entirely appropriate.

No, not appropriate; make that essential. By moving these pages away from their actual titles, you ensure that the search string "Sketch of Professor C F Hartt" won't even appear in search results. The user who types "Sketch of Professor C F Hartt‎" into the search box won't be able to find the article at all without a redirect in place.

Hesperian 05:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Second that, especially where we are reproducing complete works. Unless the title is clearly unhelpful to our page titles, then I would think that we should be keeping the original title. If we want alternatives spellings/titles, then I would have thought that they would be the redirects to the other, rather than the reverse ie. keep [[Popular Science Monthly/Volume 13/June 1878/Sketch of Professor C F Hartt]] with the redirect being [[Sketch of Charles Frederic Hartt]]. Where possible/reasonable, I would like to retain true to the work.

Fair enough. I understand your point and if you wish, I will change back all titles to their identical originals, periods and all, as they appear in the original scans. I will do this periodically to limit the number of deletions. Please let me know.

My reasoning was based on the time and effort spent to accurately identify people, authors, etc. based on their initials. As Wikisource is becoming more an more prominent (at the top of search results) as a source for names, I wanted to provide an easier path for others. Unfortunately, I never identified a redirect in search results. — Ineuw talk 15:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Meh. Though I disagree with what you've done, and think it should be rolled back, I hate the fact that so much of your time and effort has been wasted. I was considering taking this to the Scriptorium: not to haul you over the coals, but to try to establish a consensus position on titles, for inclusion in our documentation, to prevent something like this happening again. Hesperian 00:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Please haul me, it's cold here. :-D. It's not necessary for you to get a consensus because your other work is far more important. Contrary to what you may assume, I very much respect and appreciate your opinion. (That's why I bother you so much.) As far as I remember, I followed every one of your suggestions after I strayed. For these bio titles, I stated my position above, and with a view from a distance, I agree that it has strayed too far from the original. I don't mind re-doing the work. First, there aren't that many authors. Second, I approached Mpaa for a solution and I am confident that we'll work something out, as he loves a challenge and the programming experience.

I do have two questions.

1. I never saw a redirect in a search result.
2. In the original titles the suffixes are separated by spaces like, M. D., Ph. D., etc. I would like to lose the spaces in between. Is that OK? — Ineuw talk 01:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

PSM contributors category

Hi. There is no need to add kei in Category. Default sort embedded in author template takes care of it. --Mpaa (talk) 07:58, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Now I can plan on going to sleep. :-)— Ineuw talk 08:01, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

http://www.archive.org/details/naturalhistoryof1855plin

Could you upload this in DJVU format for me? ASAP preferably. - Tannertsf (talk) 06:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Welcome back. — Ineuw talk 06:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I've been around. :) - Tannertsf (talk) 06:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Your book has been uploaded and is available on WS HERE. I created a series of step by step screen images in case you are interested in learning how to upload your own books from IA.— Ineuw talk 07:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: from Italy

Hi Ineuw! Thanks for greetings. I'm very busy into our it.source, both in proofreading and exploring new fields (javascript and regex and djvu text layer tricks…). Really, I worked sometimes into en.source just to rob best ideas… ;-)

As soon as Lua will be implemented, I'll come back into en.source to rob something new. --Alex brollo (talk) 08:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Gadget that might be of interest

Gday Ineuw. I have put a gadget from elsewhere into testing here and it is one that I think will be of interest to you. The gadget (in the Development section) enables users to set display in categories to only show the last component (subpagename) of a path, so something like Category:Obituaries looks reasonable without long string names. Have a poke and see what you think. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Very neat. It looks GREAT! Thanks.— Ineuw talk 17:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

New Diseases Category

Hi, I see you've just created a category for Diseases. I think it would be better as Infectious diseases, which is what both diphtheria and typhoid are. "Disease" is a very broad term covering a lot of conditions and disorders. Have a look at the list of chapters on ICD-10-CM (2010) to get an idea of what I mean. (By the way classification of disease is what I do for a living.) Cheers, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I take a very cautious approach to categorizations, being "gun shy", and don't wish to upset those who are concerned with my running "amok" with categories. What I've been doing is that periodically revisiting, re-assessing and re-categorizing. In this case I would suggest to leave diseases and create a sub-category for infectious diseases. In my opinion, they are both valid since there are articles that qualify for either categories. I just can't act as swiftly as I would like to.— Ineuw talk 07:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Why override a defaultsort

Gday Ineuw. Maybe I am missing something, however, I fail to see the reason for this edit. It already had a defaultsort in place, and then you add a {{SUBPAGENAME}} sort which would then sort it under Joseph, rather than Lister. Not only do I not see the point, I also think it is retrograde. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

truly sorry, it was a mistake. I must have been very tired and overlooked it. I will re-check my last night's work. — Ineuw talk 17:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Question

Ineuw,

I ask, what is the purpose of using (hws/hwe) and where is it placed? I believe it is used to connect a hyphenated word on one page to another page. Is this not correct? Kindest regards, —William Maury Morris II ^Talk 21:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct. If you wish to see its actual implementation, I've applied it to some pages today. THIS PAGE and THIS PAGE.— Ineuw talk 21:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I thank you for the reply, Inew. I am aware of those two pages because I worked on them. It is what brought me here while working on a book about old Mexico in the days of the Aztec. I would like to know where I can read the rules as how to use hws and hwe and also I sae what appeared to replace an m—dash that looked something like this—on recall) (--). Please tell me what that is and where I can read about using it. Is it some way to avoid using a m—dash? I like the M-dash and N-dash buttons on my editor bar that someone placed in my common.js I think that was done by George Orwell III, a wizard amongst wizards.) Kind regards, —William Maury Morris II ^Talk 06:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me begin with your last question. The only substitute for the emdash is the HTML word which I can only show here as &+emdash+; (remove the +).

The braces around my use of the {{—}} is a template variation of the emdash which adds hairline spaces to prevent interference with my external spell check. if you do spell check and the — doesn't interfere then just ignore it.

Set up two of my sandboxes demonstrating the correct and incorrect uses of the {{hws|hwe}}. They are: User:Ineuw/Sandbox2 and User:Ineuw/Sandbox3. I hope this helps. — Ineuw talk 07:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Inew, I thank you. I watched you when you were making changes. page 1 where word is truncated: then page 2 completion of truncated word. barrancas. Regarding spell check I do that only by eye and I have very few problems with that when my friend in Mexico City comes behind me looking for my possible mistakes in spelling. The editing bar is wonderful and all the more so when InductiveLoad added a color background to it with a JavaScript to prevent Eye Strain. Really, I sincerely do thank you for your time and work in teaching me something I should have known a long time ago. You taught me "how to fish" so that now I can handle it on my own. Kindest regards, —William Maury Morris II ^Talk 08:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome and don't bother with the mdash template. In fact I also have a keyboard macro which removes the braces after spell check but keep forgetting to use it.— Ineuw talk 21:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Inew, thank you for the lessons you have provided for me and anyone else who lurks and learns. Too, you are never a "bother", you are a gifted instructor who shares knowledge.I copied your Sandbox 1 and 2 into a sandbox of my own so I will always have it as a guide. I only recently started sizing my images somewhat near the originals although no person had told me otherwise until I read your message moments ago. Then too, I looked at the recent examples you showed me tonight but also some work where you did not show me that you did as more examples. I am having to re-learn some things because I was not told otherwise. i.e. using {{nop}} and how although I had been told to use it to prevent the last line from breaking up and leaving a blank line in the body text. I love reading and editing is fun but I find that so much code for so many valid reasons takes away from some of the enjoyment therefore that is where I have to re-learn and get used to the situations -- become familiar enough that it does not distract my thinking on the people, places, and things that I am editing. It seems to me editing has become something for printing and perhaps having a printing company in the background doing that printing job to make new books to sell. Prior to all of these new specifics to me, I edited several grand volumes and placed them on wikisource and billinghurst aided me when I first started that work. It is free-form to do with no detailed specifics on "How to do it Right" -- for printing. You can look at these examples I did as Brother Officer and my real name and in an area where I was alone and saw no watchlist, or wasn't aware one existed. I now use it to watch examples of what people do and how they do things. But take a look at volume 1 and volume 2 of Exploration of the Amazon by two separate USN officers, Lt, Herndon and Lt. Gibbon under the command of a third officer, Lt. M F Maury who got them the position of exploring those areas through his influence of the Secretary of the Navy. Note the difference I was used to in just typing out a book with freedoms that are not in this newer format of each page and what, as well as how to handle code in every page plus "proofreading", "validating", concerns with hwe etc. So, as stated, I am re-learning and again, I thank you in all sincerity for your help that you have given to me, a stranger that you have taught a lot to. This sort of thing that you have done is what *I* consider to be a friendly wiki-area "family". I draw on the word "family" after seeing the wizard "-billinghurst" use it. s/he was my initial guiding light who also helped lots of people. There are many amazing people here on wikisource that do not just *group together* but also assist in situations like mine. Please pardon any word that is not spelled correctly. I have one arm and hand to use and I have to look and peck at the keyboard. Respectfully, Maury (—William Maury Morris II ^Talk 08:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I gladly share whatever I know, and if I don't - at least I know who might. and yes, billinghurst is a very knowledgeable and helpful admin.— Ineuw talk 09:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Trailing notices in PSM

Was I correct in introducing a "tosection" parameter in Popular Science Monthly/Volume 47/September 1895/Only a Match? It means that page only contains the article on matches, and not the trailing notice on the Challenger expedition. But that notice should perhaps be transcluded as an article of its own? --LA2 (talk) 02:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

We show the complete contents of the original, as is. The trailing miscellany are only page fillers in the original publication. They appear at the end of any article which does not fill the page. I just don't remember exactly in which volume (Vol 40+?) this practice started. However, I am all for collecting these miscellaneous tidbits and group them according to their topic. For example, there is at least one more comprehensive article on the Challenger expedition and numerous mentions of it throughout the PSM project. To organize this as a portal would be great, especially since there is a specific naval/maritime classification that exists in the Library of Congress classification system, which is the basis our our portals. — Ineuw talk 03:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Vol 42 Publication received

Hi. I noticed that in Vol. 42 there are sections for Publication received. Is this needed? I have searched other volumes but could not find them. As I made this table, probably it went undetected if this is not something we want. Opinion welcome and a proposal for fix in case :-) --Mpaa (talk) 12:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. First, let me commend you on your keenness and thorough approach. I am amazed how you find these things. Also, your question directed me to some corrections which I must make. :-)

The "Publication Received" section first appeared in Volume 35 May. Section additions by the original editors/publishers are only noticeable in the Index. This continued in some consecutive volumes and then stopped. Since the Table of Contents was of my making, I have some latitude and continued the section even when after was re-merged with the Literary Notices. The section often lists the first appearance of authors and publications of historical importance, and the logic to keep the section is related to the "Obituary Notices", the contents of which are often linked.

The irregular approach to the publication contents and layout by the original editors is most obvious in the Obituary Notices which are placed all over the place in different sections at different times. — Ineuw talk 19:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

pure luck :-)--Mpaa (talk) 09:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Vol 4

Hi. Just wanted to make you aware of this change. --Mpaa (talk) 19:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Many thanks. There are new cooks in the Commons kitchen and they are wasting my time with their unwarranted changes. Two happened yesterday, with this one right in the middle of work while I was trying to correct the duplication. These new editors/supervisors/administrators? (I don't know what they are) are not familiar with the PSM project and keep negating my requests. The results of which that there are unnecessary duplicates stored on the commons. To deal with this, I created a subcategory of unused images, rather than ask for deletion. It's just too much trouble.— Ineuw talk 22:54, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Author:F. X. von Neumann-Spallart

Might be him? de:Franz_Xaver_von_Neumann-Spallart--Mpaa (talk) 21:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, for sure. You won't find many names like his:-)— Ineuw talk 21:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I updated the above record and added bio info from the German Wikipedia. I have a PSM author list with abbreviated names, and/or missing dates and/or missing bio HERE. I work on it occasionally, and use this list if you want. - Perhaps copying it to a project page sandbox? Also, there are many records which were updated by other editors and should no longer be on this list - but removing them was not my priority at the moment.— Ineuw talk 22:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Author:M. A. Boland Maybe I found another one [2]? I prefer to notify to you when I find something and then you act accordingly. I cannot know where you have the most updated info, so better that I give the input and you process it. Anyhow, not my priority at the moment as well :-) I was just scanning author lists to see if some "maintenance" work was needed. --Mpaa (talk) 22:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I understand and thanks for the help. It's really kind of you. I will deal with this author as well.— Ineuw talk 22:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

PSM

I am back - vaguely - so if you have more suggestions, I'm all ears! StateOfAvon (talk) 22:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back. I've been working on an idea to place your work on the main namespace as you wished earlier. There is no problem, except when there is a conflict when an article title is used for an excerpt, then, title of the article takes precedence over an excerpt and you have to come up with your own title.

The second concern was that your efforts are not given prominence if they are independently located in the main namespace, unless they are concentrated somehow under the existing structure of Wikisource. So, I studied the US Library of Congress cataloging system which provides for collections like yours and I am presently working on it.

One last minor but ultimately important detail is that others are beginning to create their own article segments as you have, so to facilitate identifying individuals' work, I suggest that you use your username as the section begin and end code as follows:

<section begin=StateOfAvon1 />  
<section end=StateOfAvon1 />

This way, if you want to excerpt more than one segment from the same article, all you need to do is increment the number at the end of your name. This solves the issue of section identification for selected segments.

For editing help, when I am not around, you can also contact User:Mpaa who has been providing valuable help to other editors. Otherwise, continue proofreading articles, or pages of your interest and link them to your page for the time being, until I resolve the issue of your collection. — Ineuw talk 23:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I am a bit concerned by the statement that others are beginning to create their own article segments as you have. Maybe it is OK, but I think should be taken up in with the community, if not already done.--Mpaa (talk) 06:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Good morning. This was taken up sometimes last May-June. It can be found in the Scriptorium archives. As far as I remember, the only issue there was that StateOfAvon was using the article name for his segments. I am now working on a presentation of this solution and it's not complete because he was inactive for 8+ months. There are two possible solutions both of which will be presented to the community. The first one is HERE and the second must wait until later as I am about to go to sleep. :-) — Ineuw talk 09:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. My understanding was that StateOfAvon wanted to extract arbitrary subparts of articles and collate them together. That is why I made my comment.--Mpaa (talk) 16:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I feel that misrepresents what I do; I merely create a page for individual essays and articles that appeared in Popular Science; for example I created Politics as a Form of Civil War, which is an article in PSM by Author:Franklin Smith; yet when I left the project, it was because the article had been deleted and I was told people should only find it by reading PSM, not by visiting Author:Franklin Smith (which, when I returned last week, showed that Wikisource had no works by the author, despite the fact I put 6-7 works by him "online" here -- but they were moved to my userspace. Similarly, I believe people should be able to find Two Ancient Races listed at Portal:Ancient Egypt, or Holy Stones of the East and the West listed on our Portal:Religion. To say "Nah, they are too short, just put that as an extract in your userspace does a disservice to our readers. StateOfAvon (talk) 23:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Please bear in mind that you disappeared for over eight months and I had no way to discuss the issues with you.

No one deleted any articles. On my own initiative, I moved your articles, which were extracted segments from PSM to your namespace until I figured out what and how to present a solution to the community for approval. The move is what probably affected the author and portal listings.

You can move your pages back to the main namespace anytime since I don't have the time to resolve the issues instantly. With given time, I will do so once I am convinced that the idea is valid.

Length of articles have nothing to do with being placed in the main namespace.

Related: What am I doing wrong on Was This the Tower of Babel? ? :/ StateOfAvon (talk) 00:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Fixed — Ineuw talk 02:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the help with the links to exact volumes I had also been forgetting to add the category for the volume, so am trying to remember that in the future.StateOfAvon (talk) 21:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Ask and I shall receive, heh...anyways, how do you handle the photos like on Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 89.djvu/571 , where they overlap each other? Cut them into separate photos even though the top one will be missing a chunk? StateOfAvon (talk) 08:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

See the page after image was inserted.— Ineuw talk 17:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Franklin Smith

http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Page:Popular_Science_Monthly_Volume_56.djvu/661&action=history Hhow did we BOTH miss that and validate a page with the wrong author name? haha StateOfAvon (talk) 21:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The error was most likely mine. I tend to misread when tired or when trying to focus on several things at the same time. — Ineuw talk 22:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Author:Irwin Russell

Hey. Do you think they are the same: Author:Irwin Russell & Page:Southern Life in Southern Literature.djvu/428? Bye--Mpaa (talk) 21:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. yes, that's him. Inserted the image in the author page and proofread the poem. Must say that a page of PSM is much easier :-)— Ineuw talk 02:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Running Header

Hi. If you are interested, you can take a function called headerMpaa from my common.js. It fills {{rh}} taking input from first line fo page. Not perfect but useful in most of cases. Hope it works, let me know in case :-)--Mpaa (talk) 15:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the procedures. Finally I get my hands on code which have relevance to my work.— Ineuw talk 17:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

FYI, slightly improved so that it is also automatically deleted from body text.--Mpaa (talk) 20:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again. :-) — Ineuw talk 03:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Articles in The Popular Science Monthly Project

Hi. What is the wanted heading in Author pages? I have seen variations. Might try to align them. Let me know. --Mpaa (talk) 17:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

1. Articles in The Popular Science Monthly Project
2. Articles in Popular Science Monthly
3. others … ?

Definitely #2. Many thanks for reading my mind. I just didn't know how to find them. :-)— Ineuw talk 17:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Should (hopefully) be OK now.--Mpaa (talk) 20:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Ongoing Changes

Hi. What is your opinion on this kind of changes [3]? Should we keep things as they are as much as possible? If so, we should give a heads-up to the editor as I have seen many of them on going. Bye--Mpaa (talk) 09:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

This is not an acceptable version of the page. It was "drilled" into me from the beginning that what we do on the Page namespace must follow the content and layout of the original. In time, I came to adopt this view as well and wholeheartedly agree with it. I have no clue why the editor did what they did. :-) — Ineuw talk 16:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Correct image?

Hi. The image on this page is not correct. I tagged it but saw that you remove the tag. Am I losing something? Bye--Mpaa (talk) 11:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I should never edit when I am distracted. I am now in the process of replacing it. Thanks for the message. — Ineuw talk 17:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

PSM Volume 75

Found this at Google Books. Downloaded to my computer as .pdf, and images were still visible. Don't know if you can do anything with it. Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

You mean you have the complete .pdf file??? Thank you!!! I checked the web and lo and behold, I found instructions to convert Help:DjVu files here on WS. :-) Thanks again. Can you tell me your secret to download? :D — Ineuw talk 02:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you have access to Google Books? All you need to do is follow the link above, and click on the "gear" icon (top right of screen) and select "Download PDF". Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for the guidance. I only have a gmail account which doesn't provide me with the download option on the "gear" menu. Another suspicion is that being in Canada, this Google option may not be available to us.

To make a related short story long, I've been (lazily) composing a letter to Internet Archive to get this matter settled. They have a good copy of Volume 75, donated by User:Mattwj2002 and he sent me copies of all the pertinent emails. Now, I will stop procrastinating and email them, leaving the Google download as the second choice. Thanks again. — Ineuw talk 17:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Good luck! Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Ineuw, just so that you will know, I also can download that .pdf file from Google from the "gear" (The Popular science monthly, Volume 75) and I don't log in to Google nor have an account there. I use Firefox, version 13.0.1 —William Maury Morris II ^Talk 07:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi WMM3 (if I may abbreviate), and thanks again for your effort. Unfortunately, this option is not on my "gear" or anywhere on the page. I suspect that downloads are blocked in Canada, because this is not my first such experience with Google. I do have a google.com account, but when I visit the above webpage, it changes to google.ca. I also disabled all cookie blocks but to no avail.

That's fine. WMM3 - WMM1 = WMM2 will also work. —William Maury Morris II ^Talk 18:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

There is one way to make sure that the photo images are not missing (drawings were not removed), is by comparing the same page of the Google provided .pdf copy of the book on Internet Archive to your download. Printed page number 52 of the online .pdf. When you have the chance, please compare the two. If you have a photo, then you are in luck. As for the above mentioned email correspondence with IA, they never bothered to respond to my two attempts. — Ineuw talk 15:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Ineuw, the illustrations on pages 52, 53, 54 are intact on the file I download but are missing on the file on Internet Archive aka archive.org I can upload these to wiki-commons for you and then send the image links to you if you want. Or I can send them to you via e-mail. Are there other images that are suspected to be missing? There are about 600+ pages in this file. Tell me what you want me to do regarding this. I can take separate every page in a file. WMM2 ( —William Maury Morris II ^Talk 18:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Why not get a free hotmail account and see if there is a difference in how Google treats you? www.hotmail.com wmm2 —William Maury Morris II ^Talk 19:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow!!! I can't believe this. Thanks a million!!!

---

• "First, ALL photos in the online IA version have been removed, not just a couple of pages.

• They are still there. Perhaps clear the cache in your browser and look again. —William Maury Morris II ^Talk 20:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

---

The strategy would be is to ask User:George Orwell III, or anyone in the know, (perhaps a post in the Scriptorium), on what's the next step to convert the volume to .djvu format and upload to the Commons. This is a very hazy area for me. In any case, I can gladly handle the "legwork" involved. Or, I would love to I get the .PDF volume by email to look at and continue the process from my end, but I think it exceeds the 5MB email limit. The IA version was 2.6MB without the photos. In any case, many thanks.

PS. I have no idea why I didn't look closely to the Roman numerals in your name. Please accept this oversight as extending your family tree by another generation.

— Ineuw talk 19:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer of the hotmail account, but that's not the problem. Both my yahoo and gmail are US .com accounts but it's the IP address that's checked. — Ineuw talk 19:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Ineuw, try this link: http://archive.org/details/ThePopularScienceMonthly75 You may have to wait for all formats to be created including .djvu format Don't be concerned about my name. WMM is good enough for me to spot and nobody else uses it. I have this long-winded version because my other, "Maury", was used, then I went overseas, came back, couldn't recall the log in code, was locked out.

Ineuw, I can extract any page from the file for you. If you only want the 4 missing images I can e-mail them to you. I can also remove the rest of the page and just send the illustration for you. Just let me know what you want me to do and I'll try to help. I do not think one image at a time will fill anybody's e-mail box. --WMM2 —William Maury Morris II ^Talk 20:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I am completely mystified. When did you find this? This seems to be a brand new web pages and files are being added as we communicate. Just check out the repository date. The old repository of 2010-Apr-26 version has no photos (I know, I already downloaded once their old .JP2 file.

26-Apr-2010 repository

21-Jun-2012 repository

• I uploaded the immediate file above. (21-Jun-2012) —William Maury Morris II ^Talk 02:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Let's wait until tomorrow and see when they are adding the .djvu file. If they post it, I will upload the missing volume to the commons. While writing this, I am in the process of downloading the .JP2 zip file which I use to extract and trim the images.

I can't thank you enough. I would love to get to know the story behind it all. . . . A case of a still very curious cat. — Ineuw talk 23:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• WAIT! (I wish I had seen this sooner). I just downloaded the PDF from IA and took the liberty of 1.) replacing the google front-page with a blank page matching the rest of the pages' dimensions for improved resolution detection; 2.) deleting all the "digitized by Google" watermarks typically found at page bottom-right (these "confuse" most OCR routines by skewing the main body text column(s) with an extra 'out-of-box' row); and 3.) inserted a missing blank plate page at p529 for the image found on p528 (or should that be the other way around? let me know...) to maintain proper page count & sequence. I can upload the improved PDF here if somebody is willing to move it to IA and let them convert that file to .djvu instead. The resulting text layer should be somewhat better without the false-positive Google disclaimer page & the deleted watermarks. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• • George Orwell III, how did you remove the watermarks from the bottom of every page? The long way, one-by-one long and slow or is there a faster and shorter method? Respectfully, —William Maury Morris II ^Talk 02:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Well until Adobe Acrobat ver. 10, it was really long & slow -- a one-by-one process for every page. Now its just as long but repeatative keystrokes under a simple page-list against 'objects' rather than images makes it far easier than any other way I've tried to do this (including direct .tiff editing, etc.). Still technically one-page-at-a-time & a real pain in the azz when something is hundreds of pages, but it seems to pay off in the long run by allowing me to find duplicates or omissions on the fly rather than after conversion, upload and Indexing. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I downloaded the file from [4] on google.com All images are in this file but as Ineuw pointed out he could not see some of the illustrations when looking at Internet Archives. I next took this file, looked all through it, and then uploaded it to Internet archives so that there would be a 2nd and properly illustrated file on Internet archives. I made no changes to the file and I cited google.com as the scanner for that file. Aside from everything else, I thank you for your method of using Acrobat 10 because I do have that version but have taken the long route of saving every image to a .jpg image so that I could clean the center and top areas of any image. Then I saved all images back to .PDF file but I only do this for myself when I want originals printed out and made into a book. I e-mail a company the fixed .PDF, they print it out for me, I pick it up and pay for the clean and original book.--wmm2

I don't believe we will get all the images with that one either. There certainly be more images available compared to the previous version but I can tell already that the base PDF does not recognize every b&w line drawing or schematic as an individual image file, so some of those won't be coming along in the end conversion just like it happened with the previous one.

Hey, I might be out-dated here - many software updates to PDF and Djvu base programs in the past few weeks and IA might be doing better than I am here at home. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

http://ia600708.us.archive.org/9/items/ThePopularScienceMonthly75/ [21-Jun-2012 repository]

Back to the problem file, I uploaded it, as stated, and it now located here.

Respectfully, —William Maury Morris II ^Talk 03:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

If you have it handy (can't quite tell if you downloaded it or not from the above), can you let me know if the image currently on p528 should really be p529 and p528 should be the blank complimentary to it (or vise-versa)? -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

... and the tweaked PDF is uploaded HERE if it helps. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

You are out by one page. [http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=File:Psmv75.pdf&page=57 This should be .pdf #56. I was writing the below reply when you added the above:

Don't think so. Position 57 is scanned PDF page no. 52. The text before and after it flows properly so I don't see any offset. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

There is a problem but it's surmountable. The downloaded .JP2 file is also missing the photo images. So far, the only file that has the photos is the downloaded .pdf file.

This repository page is complete with their 12 different formats.

Both their downloadable and online viewable .djvu copies are also missing the images

I did a print screen copy from the .pdf, it looks good. but will wait for GO3 to upload the .djvu generated from the .pdf. If the Google disclaimer of the 1st page is discounted, the .djvu number is offset and precedes the page numbers by 4. This corresponds to the IA assigned numbers of the .JP2 pages. The first photo of the .pdf appears on page 52 and the .JP2 image number is 56 (PSM V75 D056.jp2). — Ineuw talk 03:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The IA stuff matches my PDF just because I didn't delete the disclaimer page but sawpped it out for a blank instead. The offset begins on or around PDF scan page no. 528 where the blank plate page was missing causing an offset of 1 in the IA version. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

PSM Volume 75 Part 2

The above was too long for me to manage so I broke it up to Part 2. Below is the link the photo in the book. File:PSM V75 D56 Before and after photos of orthodontal jaw treatment.png

Look that's 56 without the the disclaimer page being counted.

• • If you want the text layer to line up neatly, we need the disclaimer place holder to match the hidden text layer progression.
  • If you want the jp2 picture titles to line up neatly, we need to delete the disclaimer page (throwing the entire text layer off by 1 until p528 where it becomes off by 2)

Check that. - now there is another new PDF up on IA with its own embedded text layer rather than the djvu conversion generated one. Off to investigate -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't be concerned about the image numbers. Just go ahead and do what you think is best. I have plenty of experience renumbering images because IA screwed up.— Ineuw talk 05:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Well that latest PDF on IA (~1 hour ago) has really really nice text layer but is missing as many images if not more as the old old version did. As I mentioned earlier, the best possible outcome is not for me to do the conversion but to take the corrected, cleaned & uploaded PDF and add it to IA's repository to let them generate a whole other archive. THAT resulting djvu should be the best of both the text-layer and the image worlds. Otherwise, as is the case with the other PSM file corrections, it will be sometime before I am really free to do any PDf-to-DjVu conversion work at home. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that you shouldn't bother and waste your time. Can't I upload their imageless .djvu with the text layer for proofreading, and upload the images copied from the .PDF as well as the the .PDF with the images as the reference document? There are about ~125 images and drawings. The drawings are in the document, it's the photos they culled. Then, when time permits or when another archive with images is created by IA, we'll just replace the Commons .djvu file? — Ineuw talk 06:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

You'd still be missing either another image or a blank page at pDF scan page no. 528/529 if you did that. It would require moving ~120 pages afterwards. Ask someone with an IA account to upload the fixed PDF to IA and wait for them to finish creating a new sub-archive. -- George Orwell III (talk) 09:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

---

Sleep well GO3, as I assume that you're 'down under' and good morning WMM2. At one point last night, I became lost in your conversations, so waited until this morning to re-read everything from the beginning.

To allay GO3's concerns regarding missing pages, I found the answer:

In the PDF, using the printed page number sequence, page 528 is missing the number because it's a full page photo which is often without a header. The photo is with color elements and Google did not convert it to B&W. It was scanned manually because the tip of the thumb of the person holding the page is visible in the lower left.

This is followed by a blank page protector and the next page number is 530.

In the .djvu these two pages appear as blanks because photos were removed, which render the view as two blank pages.

As for the technical aspects, I can only volunteer time (upload & image cleaning) to the effort because I am not equipped for the technical aspects of managing .pdf and .djvu files. I use PDF creator from Sourceforge and the Sumatra pdf reader, since I have no time and inclination to be diverted from my online work. — Ineuw talk 16:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

So, in conclusion, is everything in its place now, gentlemen? WMM2 —William Maury Morris II ^Talk 20:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

This should be up to you and GO3 because the two of you know best what the next best step is. I have an account at IA and more than willing to upload and request a new repository. What I've done is to check the various file formats and see if they match.

Images are an independent issue, and they have nothing to do with the text. I need to test additional images and see if a higher (and better) resolution is possible because there is a difference between the image resolution of a Printscreen of a photo and an actual original scan rendered in .JP2000.

I think that this is the first step in preparing other formats when IA prepares a repository. I say this because the .JP2 images are truly high quality. Another reason we should no longer be too concerned with images (since we already downloaded the PDF with the images), is that of the ~125 images or so, more ~50% are drawings, not photos. This makes our decision even easier and I go along with whatever is decided. — Ineuw talk 20:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Either way, the Google watermarks "disrupt" possible performance and quality. At times during the processing, the watermark is seen as a grayscale image while in other instances it is considered simple text with a gray-ish font color. An important project piece such as a missing PSM volume deserves not be weighed down with such dualities so I say the first step here would be to work off the PDF I uploaded. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

If whatever you refer to above is up to me or GO3 then it is up to GO3. He is an administrator here and I'm not. George Orwell III knows far more about the technology used on Wikisource than I do. He has taught me many things over the years. We all know different things and I am impressed with your image work! I have been noticing the fine details as I validated many of your pages. Your image work is almost at a state of perfection whereas I only get close to the original image. Kindest regards, Maury < —William Maury Morris II ^Talk 21:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Moved to next section, - PSM Volume 75 Part 3

:::::::::::: If IA already has 14 "bad" archives of volume 75 then what is 1 more? Please, take the PDF I uploaded yesterday and copy it to IA. What's the worst that can happen? -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. In truth, I discovered that working on images is a wonderful break from proofreading, in addition to learning a little about images, because I have zero prior experience. I became fairly adept at the process from the beginning (IA) to end (Commons). Now, even my family sends me images to adjust. :-) — Ineuw talk 21:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

PSM Volume 75 Part 3

This was moved up from below, not to disrupt the topic flow.

P.S: I find that each section is becoming too long and I get lost:) — Ineuw talk 23:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

If IA already has 14 "bad" archives of volume 75 then what is 1 more? Please, take the PDF I uploaded yesterday and copy it to IA. What's the worst that can happen? -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. There is one point (not a problem) though. the images are now offset by 5 pages because of the blank first page. I will wait until IA do their thing and then, can renumber the images as necessary.

Not after I get a hold of the finished IA product. Every .DjVu file we deal with is of the 'bundled' type. Each page within a 'bundled' .DjVu file is really a stand-alone 'indirect' .DjVu file with its own name based on the name given to the 'bundled' .DjVu file plus a 3 to 4 digit contiguous number suffix.

So let us say the 'bundled' file PopSciMo_v75.djvu consists of 5 scanned pages. The internal 'indirect' file make-up for the 'bundled' file would normally be something like...

1. PopSciMo_v75_0001.djvu
2. PopSciMo_v75_0002.djvu
3. PopSciMo_v75_0003.djvu
4. PopSciMo_v75_0004.djvu
5. PopSciMo_v75_0005.djvu

IA, however, frequently plays fast and loose with the .DjVu file standard and can begin a conversion with an 'indirect' suffix value of 0000 instead of 0001. This is great in most cases because it makes the Google disclaimer page the exception to the standard and allows for it to be deleted without consequence (as far as 3rd party software goes) during further file manipulation, etc.. The downside to keeping the disclaimer/place-holder, among other caveats, can be (a) the skewing of internal page content such as image naming like we are seeing in this case and (b) the internal difference(s) in relation to the pages that follow the disclaimer won't allow some programs to "open" the .DjVu since they don't really know what to do about something assigned 4 zeros in the first position which is not "well defined" in the .DjVu file standard (i.e. only expects a .iff dictionary file or 0001 indirect file @ the first position to make a long story short).

Bottom Line: what I need is a good text layer that I can extract to a special text file even if it comes from a 100% image-lacking DjVu file. I can then re-name or numerically align the internal 'indirect' file names and apply it to a 100% image complete .DjVu.
(p.s. -- I already have a finished .DjVu with all the figures, photos and images present for vol.75; but no text-layer). -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The_Popular_science_monthly_djvu.txt. This text file seems to be the best candidate. — Ineuw talk 04:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Its wonderful. Too bad it is not in a format that any DjVu or PDF software can actually use. Its great for cut & pasting text manually and little else.

Again, all I need (even in the worst case) is a rotten or poor image resolution DjVu file with a great OCR generated hidden Text Layer (not Text File; there's a difference) from the folks at IA. If you uploaded my PDF it should appear soon. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

It's already processed HERE. I am amazed how this works. I am also downloading the .JP2 file from the same repository.— Ineuw talk 06:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I hope that you can do something with the text file. The JP2 files are bright red and the text is unreadable. :-( — Ineuw talk 06:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Downloading it as I type. It should be done by this time tommorrow. I'll post back if something goes wrong before then. -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for your efforts and hope for good results. I think we deserve it by now.— Ineuw talk 07:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• That almost took longer to upload than edit. Anyway, its up Index:Popular Science Monthly Volume 75.djvu. Look it over and let me know if it looks as good as I think it does. Off to bed. -- George Orwell III (talk) 08:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks A perfect birth. :-)— Ineuw talk 10:00, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Please look

Ineuw, you edited this and it shows that an image replacement is needed. There is already an image there and it looks correct to me. —William Maury Morris II ^Talk 22:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Popular_Science_Monthly_Volume_45.djvu/626

There is another following the above.—William Maury Morris II ^Talk 22:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

---

Hi. The pages are considered proofread, and these tags are a reminder for me to replace these images because they are quite poor when rendered in Firefox. I do this periodically, and already replaced the above mentioned two. The tag creates a link to this category where I find them.

P.S: There are quite a few images need replacing. but one or two tags are sufficient to remind me which gallery to look at.— Ineuw talk 00:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Your image work is top quality

Ineuw, I have noted this to you once before and I hereby do so again; your image work is superb! I have seen pages where the images were so bad it looked like a lost cause and yet beside that original image that looks so bad is your image and so perfect it almost looks 3-dimensional at times. On the flip side you often do not include a running header in your near perfect work including the text on each page. I can't say enough about those images though. Somehow you go beyond the average good image and pull out a Sharpness that produces a 3-D look. I can do that average clean image but how is it that you pull out that sharpness in each image. You must spend a lot of time working on each image and yet I have seen that you have done many images. But please try to remember to include the running header on each page so I can just read your illustrated works and not have to add the simple running header i.e. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Popular_Science_Monthly_Volume_12.djvu/35 Respectfully, WMM2 <-—William Maury Morris II ^Talk 03:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Please don't bother adding the missing running headers. If you tell me which volume you wish to work on, I will insert the headers immediately because I have the tools & macros which make the work fairly fast and easy.

Mpaa has already provided me with a list of proofread pages without the headers, and I am adding them volume after volume. Volume 8 was the planned upcoming volume, but I can do any volume in any order. Variety is the spice of proofreading.

The story of the missing running headers is a fine example of (my) incorrect initial assumptions, frustrations with various aspects of proofreading, and my (mis)understanding of the Page and Main namespace requirements. I focused on the main namespace where there we no running headers and thought that they were secondary and which can/will be later added with scripts. Only much later I learned differently, and devised a variety of macro tools and custom toolbar buttons to help. — Ineuw talk 04:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I would have kept on adding running headers by hand as I read the page. Just before I saw this note I validated a page on the file we three were working on # 75. I did not know that someone could get a "list" of proofread pages, nor about those tools and macros!

I do not need a to tell you about any particular volume I am working on because I reading here and there (hither and yon) on various topics and not just Popular Science. I used to love reading Popular Science in high school and I loved the Physics (i.e. Hero's steam engine &c.) in them but that was so long ago it is almost like another world that never really existed. P.S. & N.B. Nice image work! WMM2 —William Maury Morris II ^Talk 04:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I just thought of something, Ineuw, if you have to do those running headers on that list or any other, by hand, then let me know and I am willing to help you. Just show me a link. That way you can have more time for and enjoyment editing new pages and working on your images. WMM2 —William Maury Morris II ^Talk 04:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure??? That would be asking too much. Volume 8 would be the next volume in order. But, will paste the other volumes in my other sandboxes and send you a message.— Ineuw talk 04:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't hear you ask. Yes, I am sure. Okay, I will work on adding the headers to volume 8 but please do not use a macro or javascript or whatever to enter the running headers because I do them shorter and by hand. I don't want to confuse me. Leave them as is and I will do them. This way you can work on new things -- like volume 75 and new images and what I do with volume 8 is read (proof read) and add the headers and validate. This way we can get twice and much done. Too much automation is not artistic. It's like the famous Jim Dine's shovel placed from an assembly line in a museum and calling it a "work" of "art" and I totally disagree with that idea. (I took art classes long ago and was married to an museum restoration artist long ago) WMM2 —William Maury Morris II ^Talk 04:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I will not touch any running header in volume 8. Please feel free to copy the list out There are other corrections that I, or Mpaa will do on the volume but not running headers. Also, you will find some pages on the list with running headers already done. — Ineuw talk 05:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I have copied volume 8 to my sandbox/5 so you can clear out your sandbox. —William Maury Morris II ^Talk 05:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see where this is needed. //Copied from above=> Volume 8 was the planned upcoming volume.// I don't use it because the page numbers are not sequential. I look at the colored boxes and work through those. I hope that you are working hard today. <smile> —William Maury Morris II ^Talk 15:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Running Headers &c.

Ineuw, you have stated that some of the running headers already exist and that is true. However, they are not placed in the proper running header area. They are placed in the main body of text at the very top. The running header is above the text body and here is one of the examples;

from volume 8 page 105. It will be corrected by the time you read this. My point here is a hope that this does not happen again in whatever you work on next. I am trying to head off any needed corrections before they happen again. Please make sure, if you place any running header at the top, that it is placed at the VERY top, above the text in the body. I hope that I do not offend you in writing this but I think you are very smart and can easily see what I refer to. Kindest regards, Maury —William Maury Morris II ^Talk 06:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I am not offended, :-) but it's not me who did it. -D: That's why it's on the list. Now that I looked at it, please check that the running headers in the prior pages are italicized. — Ineuw talk 06:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I will check for italics before the page where I started from that list you were given on vol.8 after I move forwards a bit more. I didn't look who did it but you do a lot of work so "just in case" Respectfully, —William Maury Morris II ^Talk 06:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Besides proofreading, there will be several other groups of corrective tasks will have to be made on the volume which will necessitate paginating through from beginning to end. So, don't worry about anything else. — Ineuw talk 06:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I look for everything I can find as I read a page. I remove spaces, proofread, add whatever may be missing in the way of text, and whatever else.... You can go on ahead of me and come back behind me later for what I have done in a few moons. I am not moving fast because I am trying to get this right. The running headers I just finished working on were totally wrong, and no, you didn't do them. See you in a few days. E-mail me a White Polar Bear Cub and we can get GO3 (George Orwell III --My he has a long name!) to e-mail us a Koala bear. I can send you two a Texas Longhorn with the Bull attached. —William Maury Morris II ^Talk 06:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Validating

Ineuw, I replied to your "Note of thanks" on my talk page. I have validated volume 8 of Popular Science Monthly and have back-tracked to volume 7 and have been working on that. I would like to ask a small favor of you and that is, would you please do some validating on some of my work? It is a small amount consisting of only about 100 pages at this point. I will edit more of the pages on that later as I continue with PSM volume 7. This book is about my ancestor and therefore is important to me. Here is my project: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Index:A_Life_of_Matthew_Fontaine_Maury.pdf I know you have a lot with PSM and I will continue to assist you in that work. I just need a few validations and corrections if needed. Kindest regards, —William Maury Morris II ^Talk 20:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I will gladly do it, just didn't know until now which project you were interested in. Also, I was wondering for a long time if you were related to Matthew Fontaine Maury. — Ineuw talk 23:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Ineuw, thank you for the validations and corrections on my project. I have finished working on PSM 7, PSM 8, and will have started on PSM 9 unless you have objections. The page I am about to work on now has no running header so I suspect there are others which I will seek. Is Ineuw a real name or a nom de plume? Where does the word come from and what does it mean? This is just my curiosity so don't be concerned if you don't want to answer. I would like to have a complete set of hard-bound copies of all of these Popular Science Monthly with marbled paper on the insides of each volume and each volume bound in leather with gold lettering. This is done in Colonial Williamsburg, Virginia for people wealthy enough to have their works preserved or re-bound. There are several kinds of leather from calf skin to sheep skin and more. The really good leathers come from England. Thanks again. Respectfully, —William Maury Morris II ^Talk 02:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Ineuw, I have now completed validating volume 9, and I started on volume 10 but then I ran into a complexity and I need to sort out something about proper validating that I do not understand before I can continue. So, all volumes 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8, and 9 are "validated" for us at this point but not all are completed "edited." Kindest regards, William Maury Morris II (talk) 02:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what to say except that I am speechless. Needless to say that I am grateful, but also think you got carried away. :-) Many thanks. 02:22, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Ineuw, in most all of these recent PSM volumes that I have worked on validating it typically is your name I often see who did the editing of text. As far as I know your name is on every image worked on. I have seen no other's name on the images. I got carried away? You are the one who has done a massive work on those volumes. Validating is simply reading over the text and clicking on green and saving what you have done. Correcting running headers, or adding them and the page numbers isn't difficult. I have just been helping on your project that I can see is a huge task but yours is the larger of those tasks and especially with those excellent "tables" that you did. I did not know that you are such a perfectionists until I started validating for your projects volume after volume after volume. You had a heavy burden in all of that. My help is no big deal since we are all here to work on projects anyway. I just decided not to transcribe books that I wanted for awhile. It all comes out the same to me, work is work and the topics are interesting. I am not finished working on helping you with the PSM volumes. Several times I wanted to fill in un-proofread articles that were interesting and which I may do after I have validated more on the PSM Volumes. I know that all pages do not have to be validated. I have seen that elsewhere in the past. You probably know of it also. However, as I stated, work is work and it is all fairly much the same -- we all edit for WS and for our own interests. I will get back to validating until all of those volumes are completed but like you, I will take "side-steps" and work on other projects editing for very short periods of time. After-all, there are only about 75-90 PSM volumes. If you can edit them I can proofread and validate them. I also wasn't aware of your skills at editing. I was surprised and pleased. I have perhaps made mistakes somewhere in all that I have validated but if so anyone that comes behind me can easily correct them. I have to go to WikiScriptorium or somewhere to ask some questions I need to learn about proper validating. Kindest regards, William Maury Morris II (talk) 06:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Really appreciate your help and shouldn't bother with my method of proofreading. Just pick a page, or an article of interest and enjoy both aspects of the task. You also discovered why all my effort is committed to a single project. PSM has a great variety of topics of interest, and for someone like me who is a generalist, it suits me perfectly. I love "swimming" in large "shallow" bodies of knowledge, because depth requires specialization, which by nature restricts peripheral vision. My way of working is only to reduce errors of an easily distractable mind. The downside is that I end up with a greater edit count per page as I focus on a particular aspect of a page and return to check other aspects. But, I hope to change this with Volume 7 where I will try to slow down and use a checklist to remind me of all the requirements of the process. — Ineuw talk 08:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I replied to you on Scriptorium and again, my question has -nothing- to do with you. I am very similar to you with my likes that you state above. I have been and still am enjoying all of the different kinds of knowledge. I love that learning but I can go either way, as you do, or otherwise, and still enjoy the learning. You excel in editing and I am pleased you chose the PSM volumes. I doubt many people would do as much as you have on them. Again, read Scriptorium. I really want to get back to some interesting reading/work now. Respectfully, William Maury Morris II (talk) 08:32, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

One other point -- a "task" itself is a pleasing thing to me. i.e. I started construction work at age 15 digging ditches all day in the hot summers and I went at it "like a crazy person" as I was told but I was youthful and full of energy. I wanted to outwork everyone is that hard labor -- it was not soft dirt. I have always been that way and I like it but there is always others that do better so I work harder and there are always others that do less and I considered those to be lazy, something I was raised to detest. I loved learning as many trades as I could in my youth so that I could own and repair any of my three houses in Florida, California, or Virginia and vacation to each in a rotation of rentals. At such times I could make any needed repairs or additions to any of my houses. Then I married and ended up with yet a 4th house that is now paid for. Most tasks are still pleasing to me. William Maury Morris II (talk) 08:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

---

ie: Two different Validations. Please look at both. One of many erroneous validations that I keep encountering. The first is a validation that should not be a validation. The form of validating with no running headers of pages needs to stop, IMHO. It makes it more difficult to validate properly with running headers and pages numbered.

http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Page:Popular_Science_Monthly_Volume_10.djvu/30&diff=next&oldid=2939286 /// William Maury Morris II (talk) 09:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

---

Please see my reply at Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help#Validating & Running Headers.— Ineuw talk 18:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)