This is Slowking4's talk page, where you can leave messages for User:Slowking4. Please use the + tab if you want to leave a new message.
Welcome to Wikisource
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, Slowking4, and welcome to Wikisource! Thank you for joining the project. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikisource, the library that is free for everyone to use! In discussions, please "sign" your comments using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username if you're logged in (or IP address if you are not) and the date. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question here (click edit) and place {{helpme}} before your question.
Latest comment: 12 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion
Gday. By now I do hope that you have come across WS:DNB.
As a couple of pointers. For links internal to the wiki, especially between DNB articles, we created {{DNB lkpl}}, and I munged together {{d}} which crunches something like {{subst:d|Peter Paul|Benazech}} to give Peter Paul Benazech. We have a number of other tricks and guidance on the page. — billinghurstsDrewth12:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
thank you, i only saw that at MoS after doing a couple of piped links. will try to return and fix those. expect to get some transcription done at DNB. please note any obvious errors, that i can avoid. Slowking4 (talk) 13:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
Hello there, thanks for the DNB contributions. I've fixed up the three "problem" articles on your userpage: different transclusion problems (page range, markup issue, missing text). Charles Matthews (talk) 07:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
thanks, i've been fight the #### in ie. the nice thing about the article transclusion is that it catches the code errors, and disambigs. i see you're moving some article names, which i mindlessly got from toc, there is some confusion between the volume toc, and the author page list; and typos, will try to cleanup. Slowking4 (talk) 13:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
There's a point you might note about "tacit disambiguation", which comes up frequently. Basically if the first part of a name occurs as the initial part of another name, we put in dates. The point of the messy lists is to generate better ToCs; they have been typed in from a handbook, onto the author pages; and then sorted. They still have their problems (disambiguations, and the fact that the order isn't correct). I use them to check that the author pages tally with the correct names as created, when redlinks show up. Keep up the good work. A couple of things to look out for: "bom" for "born" is a common typo to miss. Also dates are subject to OCR errors: "l" for "1" is very common, and it happens frequently that 5 is read as 6. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
thanks, yes i noticed - 5 for 6 about half the time? i'm including the em dash when inline of text, not always that way. the greek letters are always wrong. do we want to tag greek and latin pages for expert review? i dunno if i have those right. Slowking4 (talk) 22:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi,
Sorry to bother you but I felt it best to double check before I went ahead and deleted all These DNB articles. It seems you did blank the pages but another User, who is not a regular such as yourself (in my view at least), went further and tagged them all with {{Speedy}} delete today.
In short, I'm just not sure if you intended on finishing them up and forgot or if you blanked them because they are no longer needed / redundant / created in error and so on. Let me know here either way. Thanks. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
yes thank-you. i was blanking the page, after a cut and paste move, rather that a move, since i didn't think the wrong name was appropriate for a forward. i see it's also done the other way. Slowking4 (talk) 21:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I've realised that I got pages 1 and 3 the wrong way around when creating the DjVu of Smithson's will. I will correct this later today and move the pages of text that you have already proofread when I do so. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
thanks, that will help with variable indents, but how to measure the em space indentation, for instance at the address of a letter for instance [2]; [3]? Slowking4 (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Have you looked over the new patrolling feature I proposed us enabling at the Scriptorium? It does not interfere with the current method of patrolling so no one would be forced to switch if it were brought in. --BirgitteSB01:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion
I wasn't sure if you were aware of {{hws}}/{{hwe}} (hyphenated word start/end) for tackling hyphenated words between pages; also, while validating some pages you have proofread, I have been eliminating spaces left before/after some punctuation (quotation marks, colons, semi-colons, exclamation marke, etc.). I thought to address a third issue as well (with regard to {{fs90}}), but as I was beginning to address it, I noticed some possible template issues I had questions about and addressed them at the Scriptorium instead. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC):Reply
yes, i am aware, i plead laziness. the fs90 i picked up from another editor; wrestling with how to show those blocks of quotations through the work. Slowking4 (talk) 21:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
Personally, I like how the following renders in the Main: {{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|Page||<div style="margin:1.0em 2.0em 1.0em 2.0em; text-align:justify;">}} / {{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|Page||</div>}}. I just forgot about it until recently. Add a smaller text size to the equation, and it would look much better in the Mainspace. Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
if you did a couple to show me how, i would follow; i'm sure people would follow your lead; you could also drop a note on scriptorium to build consensus. Slowking4 (talk) 03:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
Different topic, but not requiring a whole new section: The DNB author of the "Arnould" article on this page reads "F.R." in the original, but you have (OCR error?) listed it as "F.E." (with a link to another(?) author). I'd look it up, but am short on time, and can't remember exactly where the list of authors are (in Index) for the DNB. Just thought I'd make mention. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
thanks, yes, i tend to miss the contributor when copyediting, but pick them up when i transclude later. also clean up contributor bio name versus TOC name conflicts. E for R is common. (new editors with funky lower case in supplement.) Slowking4 (talk) 18:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
ok, i am agnostic, this seems to be a common practice among printers to show block quotes as smaller type. the indent on the block quote is quite different from the source text. Slowking4 (talk)
It is... but since the formatting suggestion was made on the Talk page, and no one else 'challenged' it, I thought I'd alert you for the sake of uniformity. At least you are not apathetic. Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I wanted to let you know that I re-proofread the page Page:EB1911 - Volume 16.djvu/151 and noted that the reference which started on the previous page continued on to this page, and so I utilized the ref-name/ref-follow method (hoping I handled the reference placement correctly). There was Greek within the reference that was not proofread. If you are unsure of how to add Greek, just place {{Greek missing}} in place of the Greek, and someone will come along and add it for you eventually. I also noted tens of typos, mostly consisting of failure to italicize words or phrases, spelling/character errors, date errors, and failure to remove line spaces. Granted, many of the errors can be difficult to detect (as my eyes can attest to), but there were too many errors overall, in my opinion, to have marked the page as being proofread. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
quite right, i've been spoiled by the quality of the ocr's over at DNB. i will stop validating for a while, making more red pages, and use more zoom button for the smaller characters. this is part of my ongoing effort to transcribe EB1911, for articles in wikipedia that are cut paste from there. Slowking4 (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion
Hey Slowking,
Over the weekend I was talking with Econterms and he mentioned that you might be able to help train Wikipedia editors who are interested in Wikisource. It is tentatively planned for the summer, likely to be in NYC. Is this something you are interested in? - Theornamentalist (talk) 00:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
sorry, it was a more general discontent. but Goddard Rocket Apparatus Patent; from here [4] (didn't get from jpg to dejavu) the process is very opaque to me. need something for non-coders, hence my passing on the desire for a wizard from GLAM archivists. Slowking4 (talk) 02:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
About Goddard, is the problem creating a DjVu file from 3 Jpegs or skipping that stage and creating an Index page based on individual Jpegs? Both are possible. I ask because I seem to have extracted an image from the second page and I haven't done anything with it (and I can't remember why at the moment). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
WE seem to be fomatting these differently on the pages we've done. You've been using the smaller template for dates (but not larger for the section title, I note), whereas I've felt that shrinking the dates isn't imporant, since they won't show up in the transcribed work anyway. Thoughts? --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
yeah, flip a coin; last one there gets last word. i was just happy to figure out that "ref follow". this work has some funny across the open page formatting that will get lost in transcription. Slowking4 (talk) 21:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
I started work on a another book with a similar issue, where the pages typically consist of more footnote text than running text. The footnotes can span two, or even three pages sometimes. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
the headers are shruggable, useful mainly for navigating and proofreading. the body and footnotes are more important. note there was also some quoted text in body at reduced font; it has been done 90% in other works. Slowking4 (talk) 15:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
I haven't come across much of that, but our "finer block" template uses 92% rather than 90%. I'm not entirely sure why this is so, but I suspect it has something to do with resultion of text being easier for machines to handle. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
Wikisource, the free digital library is moving towards better implementation of book management, proofreading and uploading. All language communities are very important in Wikisource. We would like to propose a Wikisource User Group, which would be a loose, volunteer organization to facilitate outreach and foster technical development, join if you feel like helping out.
This would also give a better way to share and improve the tools used in the local Wikisources. You are invited to join the mailing list 'wikisource-l' (English), the IRC channel #wikisource, the facebook page or the Wikisource twitter. As a part of the Google Summer of Code 2013, there are four projects related to Wikisource. To get the best results out of these projects, we would like your comments about them. The projects are listed at Wikisource across projects. You can find the midpoint report for developmental work done during the IEG on Wikisource here.
yes, thanks for noticing my confusion. the code is very opaque. the template documentation refers to DNB authors not supplement authors. about 20 more to do. Slowking4 (talk) 19:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
You may be getting a notification that I've reverted one of your edits to this page (depending on how you have Echo set up). Sorry about that; it was an accident. I clipped the rollback link when I was counting edits. I rolled back my roll back, so there is no lasting effect, but I thought I should explain. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:16, 28 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
Congratulations, you had the highest score in the Tenth Anniversary Contest. (You actually slightly exceeded the edit count of every other contestant combined!) I will be contacting Wikimedia UK regarding the prize, an e-reader, soon to see how they want to handle that. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 00:07, 14 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
hopefully, WMUK will not be adverse to my free beer counter proposal prize. failed to recruit any WMDC, will talk it up at holiday party. <shrug> hopefully, can be made an annual contest, like wikicup. Slowking4 (talk) 00:12, 14 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, Slowking4! Just a heads-up that there are formatting guidelines for this text on the Index Talk page. I have not been using the poem tag, but instead use breaks. Sectioning is also used between poems (also illustrated on the Index Talk page). Thanks for helping! Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I saw that you skipped some of the pages with split references. The page with instruction is at Help:Footnotes and endnotes. In short <ref name=pN > (traditional) on first page, <ref follow=pN > on subsequent page(s). The name is to be the same, and not start with a number, my suggestion is p{{{pagenum}}} of the name . — billinghurstsDrewth03:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello! Just a heads up that we are not using the poem tag for the Proofread of the Month, but instead use end-of-line breaks. You can see an example of the formatting styling here. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
I think the problem is more than, like a lot of folks I've seen here, we get sloppy about not checking the page headers, image captions, and similar things. I've seen this a lot from people here. They check the body text, but not the other text. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
the ocr makes more errors for small caps, fewer errors for normal body text. so correction rate may be same, but more errors to miss in headers & captions. 2 on one page would indicate i was getting sloppy. Slowking4♡Farmbrough's revenge13:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Slowking4 instead of just proofreading and leaving me validating your work how about doing some validations on my proofreads? Kindest regards, —Maury (talk) 23:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for your help with the Botanist's guide. It's great to have it completed and all in green! Feeling in an enthusiastic mood I've uploaded the next Northumbrian botany project the New Flora of Northumberland and Durham. If you have any suggestions on formatting that I could follow I'd appreciate them, particularly in the middle of the book where the plants are listed. Regards Qgroom (talk) 19:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
not at all, sorry i got distracted by macarthur photos on commons,
I've been taking care to use en-dash on things like date ranges (it's a Wikipedia guideline anyway), curly apostrophes, and hairspace em-dash using {{―}} (that's an em-dash template, but easy to insert using the toolbar).
And, of course, fidelity to the original, without trying to modernize the English.
yes, should have sections added in red by end of next year. volume 1 and 4 need copying over from article space to page space, with transclusion. the adding of sections as in volume 1 would be helpful on the other volumes as well.
Sounds good. I'd be wary of calling article copies proofread, because there are instances of corrupt text (modernized spellings and rephrasing). For Greek, I use the toolbar with a rudimentary knowledge of the alphabet and pre-monotonic accents (and {{Polytonic}} for the right font). For Latin, I use the Windows 8 onscreen keyboard and press-and-hold for the extended character palettes. This can also give you curly apos and quotes, and em-dash and en-dash. We aren't bothering with links to WP these days, but there's a standard way of handling "See FOO" and "Foo (q.v.)" using {{EB1911 Article Link}}, with nosc=yes in the second case. DavidBrooks (talk) 19:58, 25 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
I think the first thing that needs to be done when "See FOO" is found is to change it to "See Foo" which is always what is meant in my experience. {{EB1911 Article Link}} with "Foo" as an argument will do this. I see you are proofreading a lot of articles, and I thank you for this. I don't see the point in linking them into Wikipedia articles until they are proofread. Better to link to some external website. Library Guy (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
New Proposal Notification - Replacement of common main-space header template
The proposal entails the replacement of the current Header template familiar to most with a structurally redesigned new Header template. Replacement is a needed first step in series of steps needed to properly address the long time deficiencies behind several issues as well as enhance our mobile device presence.
There should be no significant operational or visual differences between the existing and proposed Header templates under normal usage (i.e. Desktop view). The change is entirely structural -- moving away from the existing HTML all Table make-up to an all Div[ision] based one.
Please examine the testcases where the current template is compared to the proposed replacement. Don't forget to also check Mobile Mode from the testcases page -- which is where the differences between current header template & proposed header template will be hard to miss.
For those who are concerned over the possible impact replacement might have on specific works, you can test the replacement on your own by entering edit mode, substituting the header tag {{header with {{header/sandbox and then previewing the work with the change in place. Saving the page with the change in place should not be needed but if you opt to save the page instead of just previewing it, please remember to revert the change soon after your done inspecting the results.
Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
This page is marked as proofread. Certainly the material on Otto Bismarck ("Bismarck, Otto Eduard Leopold von," in Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed., 1911)) has been proofread, but the material on Bismarck, ND ("Bismarck, North Dakota," in Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed., 1911)) looks little touched from the OCR - there are spelling errors and all kinds of periods missing, and the for Bismuth ("Bismuth," in Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed., 1911)) the formulas haven't been rendered at all the way one would expect. I think marking a page as proofread should mean the whole page has been proofread, not just portions. Otherwise article like Bismuth are going to display as if they are proofread when they are not. I admit this is inconvenient, and that is the reason I didn't transclude the Otto Bismarck article: I didn't want to proofread the other material on this page. Please don't mark a page as proofread until the proofreading is complete for the whole page. The time for that will be when all the articles on the page have been proofread. In the meantime, the old non-transclusion approach can be used for portions of the material that have been proofread. Library Guy (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
So my fix will be to take Otto Bismarck and Bismarck ND out of transclusion and mark the page as not proofread. There is another problem here, which is that, for this DJVU rendering, a lot of the periods don't show up on the abbreviations. I am used to this, and put them in where they belong. The period placement can be verified at https://archive.org/stream/encyclopaediabri04chisrich#page/8/mode/2up where all the periods show up. The British seem to omit periods in places where a U.S. resident like myself would put them in. But perhaps this takes getting used to. For Bismarck ND this wasn't an issue. So the scan at archive.org is the final arbiter I think. The DJVU material seems be lacking in detail. Library Guy (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
i wouldn’t un-transclude, but rather improve the transcription to proofread (yellow) status. transclusion is more important than the status of the transcription & shouldn’t take long. woundn’t over think punctuation. Slowking4♡Farmbrough's revenge21:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
I guess that's a matter of opinion. I have other things I want to get to. Handling a chemistry article correctly is not a negligible piece of work, but feel free to go at it if you are so inclined and know what to do. I think the most important thing is to correctly represent what text has been proofread and what not proofread. It's just a matter of patience really. I don't think I am overthinking the punctuation. It really looked strange in the Bismarck ND article, and I found it distracting before I fixed it, and it clued me into the fact that there might be other problems, like the spelling/capitalization error. That is pretty minor proofreading, but the DJVU scan can make it difficult with its omissions. Library Guy (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Actually Gutenberg has already handled this page, but text suitable for Wikisource is not automatically provided. I am currently using Gutenberg text for Japan, but anticipate a long haul, what with the tables and illustrations. Even plain text takes some time, but that would go faster if I were more automated. Library Guy (talk) 23:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for the email, I will be acting on it at some point. Thanks for the thanks. However I have altered you edit to Page:EB1911 - Volume 28.djvu/349 because I think it better to keep the original lines as it make diffs easy to see (with the exception of fixing a hyphenated words) against the original OCR, and for that matter the actual hard copy -- it makes finding and fixing errors easier. As the text appears correctly concatenated when view in an html page it make no difference for the reader, but is I think a great advantage for the editor. -- PBS (talk) 18:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
no problem, i’m mainly cruising by trying to get a red version down, before the ocr rot sets in, like volume 1 and 25-27. i’m used to deleting carriage returns, flowing paragraphs so it looks better on page (phantom line break); italics are easier. tend to do it before validation though.
sorry to take down your black page break numbers for the blue page transclusions. it seems to me easier to build out the links.
The black page numbers are only an interim step before page transclusions, its just that I think it better to spend time filling in the gaps with page transclusions of new articles first rather than converting already formatted pages to transclusions, particularly when an editor has left hidden page numbers in the text -- which is something the prolific Bob Burkhardt aka Library Guy tended to do before more recently moving on to creating articles with transclusions. Not only is it convenient for the reader, having the page number on these previously formatted pages makes in a little quicker to find the right page when converting the page to transclusions. I have just posted a comment on this to Wikisource talk:WikiProject 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica#Intermediate step before transclusion. -- PBS (talk) 13:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Slowking4, please look at this page and fix whatever I may have messed up. I formatted the page and marked it validated before saving but it does not look correct. Kind regards, —Maury (talk) 00:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, firstly thanks for the huge effort in creating a large number of pages in EB1911. I wanted to say I found a few articles you converted to transcluded versions where the section tag for “tosection” has a typo, "sl" should be "s1". It means some articles had text from following articles displayed, I've fixed up these ones: Algol, Alhambra, The, Ali Pasha, Alice Maud Mary, Alimentary Canal, Alismaceae, Alizarin, but tthere may be more. Just a copy and paste error really, but I though I'd let you know. Also, the Template:TextQuality shouldn't be added to transcluded pages, I've removed that from a few of the above pages where I found it. Keep up the good work in creating pages! — DivermanAU (talk) 03:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
thanks, for all the verification. yep, sorry about the bad cut and paste. i’ve been pasting those over randomly, but will double back thru to incorporate all the articles not transcluded. we will need to have a fix to vol 26 & 27 for a complete work. Slowking4 04:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
There are variations of an Associated Press story, they get updated during the day with additional details or the publishing paper removes sentences to make it fit the space on a published page. 1) Do you think the versions should be grouped on a single page and each version have the publication source noted. 2) Just store the longest version on a page and maybe have the alternates stored as hidden text. 3) Give each version their own page. Which one sounds the best? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
wow, speaking of the rough draft of history. they have been transcribing unpublished manuscripts over at smithsonian, but there is a canonical text there (even if there are strikethroughs). we have different versions of EB, but they were printed. i’m agnostic: maybe longest version, and printed version? if we had galleys of a novel would we transcribe it? seems like a pseudo-problem. i.e. hard to get AP wire copy that is PD to transcribe. even if [6] Slowking4♡Farmbrough's revenge11:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Your comment on the Harpers article would fit better in my section on emendations and annotations, can we move it there? How did you write it before I even asked the question, that is spooky. I asked the question, then was reading and scrolled up and there was a comment to a question I had not posed yet. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
we don’t normally have an external links section. normally the links are in the title header; and the portals is a list of links to wikisource articles. for example Portal:Biography. there is also a review on portal talk.
I am working on User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Wikisource:FAQ to answer the question I had when I started contributing. If you can think of others, please add them, and we can answer them together.
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Slowking4 — keep up the great work you’re doing on the EB1911 project. I just though I'd mention (or remind you in case you forgot) that the EB1911 footer initials templates can be used to simplify adding authors - the template also correctly adds the initials to the end of last article line rather than a line below if just using the {{right}} template. e.g. instead of
{{right|([[Author:Christian Pfister|C. P{{sc|f}}.]])}} you can use
{{EB1911 footer initials|Christian Pfister|C. Pf.}}
The small caps for the initials are taken care of by the template, which also uses a style="float:right;" so the initials align on the last article line.
thank for fixing those, i will circle back and get the other volumes, tweak the index; create work page, promise. the incomplete metadata is at internet archive. slowking4 15:19, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
we really need to figure out a way to mitigate the metadata mess at IA. an unwary uploader could do lots of one volumes without noticing, since the metadata is prefunctary. we need to make it easier to get the completest, earliest edition. could it be a property at wikidata? Slowking4♡Richard Arthur Norton's revenge14:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
There is an edition field, however, I am not sure how you pick up that an edition has multiple volumes for an edition. @Jura1: can you assist with that matter? (hoping that listening). — billinghurstsDrewth09:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
ok done, i see there is a one volume earlier edition, but the ocr is worse, chapter layout appears the same. thanks oxford for the nice scan even if the metadata stinks (language = spanish, lol) slowking4 20:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion
I shall let you get away with this unopposed this one time. However I choose not to believe you are so naïve in general. If in fact you are there then is simply no hope for you· and accordingly I wash my hands… Only time will prove who is right. AuFCL (talk) 02:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
tl;dr: hope over experience; the WMF are trying, we need to encourage better behavior, even as we plan for the bad; the recent conference is a hopeful sign; i save my cynicism for the arbcom election. but yeah, hard to be enthusiastic for the wishing for more blocking tools, and blocked cookies. Slowking4♡Richard Arthur Norton's revenge03:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
Aha! There we find ourselves in total concord at least. I, personally, am totally and irrevocably pessimistic but at the very same time hope I am wrong. We shall see together. AuFCL (talk) 03:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
i’ve given up trying to convince; rather, i work with the willing, and try not to fight with the unwilling. no one changes their mind around here, it’s just there are so many gatekeepers who would rather fight to prevent good edits. management by drama. one nice thing about WMF neglect, you can get a lot of work done. and the community critique of WMF finance is hilarious. Slowking4♡Richard Arthur Norton's revenge04:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
I am sort of taking a chance here: Ross? (delete if true; or indeed even if not.) I think I may have had dealings with you under a different alias (both of us; in a different forum.) AuFCL (talk) 04:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Are you up to having your sig to be structured on template rather than something of the existing length? It does get a little long in some forums and if you would consider a simplification, then I am happy to build the template for you. — billinghurstsDrewth05:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
well, the blackletter template does not work very well; we need a blackletter font, although german wikisource is transcribing blackletter into latin fonts. also the preferences, saves, but purges saved sig on opening. Slowking4♡₮₳₤₭16:23, 16 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Thank you very much for lending a hand with The Art of Cookery. I noticed that you seem to have been using our own OCR tools, so I thought I just point you to User:Peter Isotalo/Glasse. There's already a transcription of the whole text.
the before 1870 scans are messy, and ocr’s bad. and our "open" ocr software not much improved. if you have a better solution, let’s work it. we could get the scan from internet archive, the ocr from elsewhere, and cut and paste as we go.
oh really. i thought that was deprecated. and wouldn’t you say that is now 100% now that we all looked at it. how is this different from all the transcluded articles with no percentage? when the transcluded page is proofread then the color will turn green. Slowking4♡₮₳₤₭22:58, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Reply
I don't see any other way to correctly indicate the state of the text when parts of a page are in different stages of preparedness. I realize eventually it will show green, but that could be a long time. I have updated the documentation accordingly. I thought this point had been made long ago. Library Guy (talk) 16:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)Reply
I think its good for people coming from outside to be able to tell quickly what they are dealing with. I spend most of my time proofing text and making it presentable, and the unproofread stuff doesn't seem all that readable to me. It is frustrating to proofread text and see it presented as unproofread as would happen without TQ insert. Also to see formerly well organized text like The New International Encyclopædia/Africa now transcluded without the formerly careful placement of figures I don't find desirable. It is possible to transclude things without the jumble. See The New International Encyclopædia/United States. It takes some time, but perhaps its better to leave the transclusion until someone wants to take the time. Library Guy (talk) 17:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I noticed many 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica pages converted by you into transclusions weren't displaying article text. They would just display the "pages" line e.g. Buonafede, Appiano - which I haven't fixed shows:
<pages index="EB1911 - Volume 04.djvu" from="829" to="829" fromsection="s3" tosection="s3">
I’ve fixed several more, from Buoy to Burgas; some articles display OK with the the missing "/" (e.g.Burgdorf) and others don't. Not sure why that is. e.g.Burgee (not fixed by me) doesn't display properly; I used Chrome, Edge and IE11, it didn't display properly in any of them. DivermanAU (talk) 20:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)Reply
half thru, all the transclusions missing "/" ; it breaks only about 1/4 the time. will then review transclusions only 7000 to go. apparently not breaking when /pages is appended. hope it does not break <br>. Slowking4 15:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
because the Library of Congress Copyright Office will not digitize their records. project Gutenberg has done the renewals only. if we are going to research orphan works between 1923 and 1977 then we will need all this gibberish proofread. hathi trust librarians are currently researching orphan works, and we need to give them the tools. 1 ½ volumes down; 673 to go. [9] better than poetry. Slowking4 ‽ T A L K02:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
Is there enough useful text in the raw OCR for hathi trust to search that? The reason I'm asking is that it's an enormous volume of proofreading, likely to take years to complete here -- unless we have many more volunteers working on it. Maybe you could start with proofreading a couple of volumes, see how it goes. Are there some volumes more important to them than others? Outlier59 (talk) 22:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
hathi trust, or IA only have the pdf’s; i.e. you can’t search it for names via browser. gutenberg did the renewals 10 years ago. the IA text layer is ok, but it gets corrupted going to dejavu. the large file size creates problems. of the 1000 pages per volume about 5 or 10 need a complete redo. if we could automate a bot to create pages and grab the text layer, that would be a big leg up. i kinda gave up waiting. time to get some work done, and maybe the librarians will pitch in. a librarian from Penn requested some obscure music volumes, need them all (at least by year) to search and prove a negative. Slowking4 ‽ T A L K23:24, 9 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
If the IA text layers are reliable, maybe they could be copied directly to hathi trust or Commons -- or at least the Name Index section of the text layer for each volume. These volumes are more database than prose. Their main use is for searching for names or numbers. Does IA know the OCR accuracy for the text layers of these volumes? If those text layers are 99.9% accurate, the original printed volumes probably contain more human errors than the computer OCR generates.
I think the best way for Wikisource to help hathi trust is to proofread a sample of pages from IA text layers for these volumes -- if IA doesn't already know the accuracy of the text layers. But I bet IA knows the accuracy. Maybe you could ask hathi trust to look into using text layers rather than pdf for copyright searches? If the text layer is more accurate, I'm surprised it's not being used. Outlier59 (talk) 14:34, 10 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
hathi trust is working their text layer, but a web searchable version is better. and they are working books only - not music or pamphlets. and they released their manual of how they do copyright searches, it is very complex. and the LOC web searchable database after 1978, is qualitatively different from the offline search of hathi. Slowking4 ‽ T A L K01:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
Well, I guess this is something I just don't understand. The "not proofed" pages look to me to be too error-filled to be useful in an online search. Outlier59 (talk) 12:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
for example look at the random search "Horton T. Kelsey" [10] - first result is the catalog. if the text layer can get carried over from the pdf, they should work this way. Slowking4 ‽ RAN's revenge12:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello Slowking4! My name's Joe Sutherland and I'm helping to run the Inspire Campaign on addressing harassment currently running on Meta-Wiki. I'm interested to know a little more about your motivation for proposing your Idea about training reviewers to become ambassadors. What was the inspiration for this proposal? And do you think the feedback you have received so far has been useful to you in improving it? Thanks! JSutherland (WMF) (talk) 17:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Slowking4, nice work on Volume 28 of EB1911. Have you considered using the mostly-proofed Theodora version as a basis for proofing? e.g. on "Page:EB1911 - Volume 28.djvu/665" I used the webpage "view-source:http://www.theodora.com/encyclopedia/w/sir_david_wilkie.html" and pasted that in. It found two fixes in the first 1½ lines alone: "WaIter" had capital i (I) not lower-case L (l) and "£gures" should have been "figures". Exapmples of other fixes found with Theodora text were: "WiUcie's" → "Wilkie’s" (I added the curly apostrophe myself) and "facihtating" → "facilitating". Also most scans (including the gutenberg.org version) don't pickup the ndashes (–) for year ranges and have a hyphen instead. I made such a fix on the page above.
Would you consider leaving pages in "Not proofread" status until it's had proofed text from another source or a solid proof? Makes it easier to know which pages to target then.
I also use the "clean up" script to remove line-breaks, (tick the box for "Add a 'regex editor' sidebar link which lets you write, apply, and save regex patterns" in "Preferences, Gadgets").
hmm, well should not have proofread that. yes, i have on occasion copied over better text layers from other sites like IA or gutenberg, and thanks for that work at EB1911. but now, i’m mainly cruising through and linking from wikipedia, and doing minimum proof to make readable. i will mainly leave them "unproofread" - only six thousand articles to go. the links will get us views and improve references there, some of which are rotting. i may swing by again to proofread later. Slowking4 ‽ RAN's revenge15:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi @Slowking4:, I was looking into the OCR workflow on Wikisource for a project for using it on Indic wikis. I saw that there seems to be proofread text on the page when the page is created. Could you tell me where this proofread text comes from? Is it from Phetools? I'm also interested in hearing of any ideas you have for improving this workflow. Thanks for your help! -- NiharikaKohli (talk) 23:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)Reply
there is an OCR open software, which is not as good as the pdf version, or google workarounds. you might want to ask around at scriptorium, or at armenian wikisource who have OCR problems. Slowking4 ‽ RAN's revenge07:49, 30 July 2016 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
@Slowking4: Thanks for the message. A happy new year to you. If I can distract you for more than a moment from "volume 16 / letter L", There is a page that you created, that is full of OCR errors (mostly due to the original format of the page). It is 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Templars. It could do with some TLC involving a remake with Translucences.
User:PBS ok, i have inserted the footnotes, i leave the cleanup to you. (that was a blast from the past - the broken volume, which i cut and paste from IA, just when they fixed the index). cheers Slowking4 ‽ RAN's revenge15:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
yes - you picked a good critique of my practice of linking unproofed ocr’s. it does not work for articles with references, images, greek or latin. but for 80% it is readable. Slowking4 ‽ RAN's revenge00:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
User:PBS when a page does not show, that means the section tag does not match. i tend to cut past the exact code, from the page - and it worked here - you had the "'" in there, and for some reason it did not take. i have a problem with ’ and ' (flavors of apostrophe) also. hence my tendency to use "s1", since it is easier to match. Slowking4 ‽ RAN's revenge00:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Not sure why we would want a page named "The Poems of Emma Lazarus volume 2", surely it would be "The Poems of Emma Lazarus" or if required to push to subsidiary level "The Poems of Emma Lazarus/Volume 2". Either way, creating empty pages is something that we have been discouraging. — billinghurstsDrewth01:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
i’m lazy and it a 2 volume work. was working on index. slowed down by volume 1 which has a corrupt page - so i’m stumped. the page is good at google books but not IA ? Slowking4 ‽ RAN's revenge01:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
When I had a corrupt file at IA, I have usually just asked them to rederive it, though I haven't had to do that since they have stopped doing djvu files by default. If it has a corrupt page only, I would just separately upload the missing page from an alternate source, and transcribe it separately. Sure it means that the djvu at Commons is incomplete, but in the end I am more concerned with having a full work here. [This hang up about putting text back into djvus is a pipe dream that will never happen, we cannot get resources for important things, let along unimportant things] — billinghurstsDrewth10:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future.[1] The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey.[2] The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.
You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.
↑This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
↑Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.
Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Slowking4. I'm new here so please let me know if there's been discussion about this elsewhere, but as far as I understand <br> is incorrect HTML and should not be used in favour of <br/>. I think the software does some behind the scenes work to replace br with br/ but that function will be deprecated soon. I've been replacing the former with the latter at The Book of Scottish Song, so would appreciate if you could use br/ in the future (unless, as I said, there's some discussion about this I'm not aware of!). Sam Walton (talk) 22:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
well to quibble it is <br /> all others are hacked by the parser. i had a lot of <pages> break, so less inclined to stay lazy. although happy to agree with tim starling to prefer the shortest character version. love the wikipedia coder love fest.Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge01:22, 8 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion
Hello, Slowking4! I looked over six of the pages you proofread for the PotM, and found several consistent errors. You might want to have another look-see of the pages you proofread and make corrections. There are several OCR errors remaining, spaces surrounding emdashes &c. need to be removed, some gaps need to be added to one stanza... I fixed some errors that I found on page 253 (I was not ultra thorough), but did not make any adjustments to pages 254-258 -- if you want to look them over again. If you can't get to it, I can look them over tomorrow. Thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:31, 16 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Morning! I was a bit more thorough looking at proofread p. 255. After I made changes to formatting for consistency, I went back to fix ocr errors, etc. You can take a look at the Revision history to see what sort of errors, etc. you should look for when proofreading. I chose not to validate, for I am not confident that I have made no oversights myself. P.S. Pages 256-260 will need a look-over for errors, if you are willing. I only made adjustments for formatting consistency on those pages, but did not check for errors. Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
yes, "missing page 358 and 359" it took me a while to find that and look for a better scan. a tool to check internet archives pages, and a tool to check for works with similar title already uploaded, would be nice. Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge11:54, 28 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
no but i can dream. if there were a query for certain template strings or text strings, then we would have a powerful work flow. watchlist and contributions do not work for numbers over 1000. Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge02:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for your enthusiasm, but a small number of scan errors and formatting are apparently being overlooked. Please consider reviewing the changes I've made following behind your good faith efforts. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:56, 6 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
At Special:Diff/6632213 you added a list of people and a list of contributors for the work. What is the source of the contributors, as I cannot find it in the work itself.
We probably should be maintaining that list of contributors outside of the work if it is not published in the work. Probably stick it on the talk page, and utilise the list to add to author pages, and to wikidata for the contributors. Thanks. — billinghurstsDrewth02:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. Hmm, as a separate publication. Now do we upload it separately and reference; upload it and transclude it within the work; or just scrape it and ignore that fact that there is a scan. @Beeswaxcandle: do you have a thought to this? — billinghurstsDrewth12:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
and the end matter got separated from the book - as you saw i did the latter. colored by the american "lists are PD". it would have been a little harder to do from scratch, but not impossible. Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge12:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
It looks like it was published separately, maybe as a removable insert. Some of this was the prospectus that was used to raise the capital necessary to set up the plates and do the print run for the full book. I recommend uploading it and transcluding as the TOC and contributor's list. The outer pages, which contain the prospectus could be transcluded as a subpage. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hoi, can we talk about what we could do when we are to collaborate with the Internet Archive and its Open Library. I am aiming to get all the books with identifiers external to OL for all the authors where Wikidata has an OL identifier.. The next step would be other books with freely available content as well. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 15:18, 16 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
User:GerardM well, we have Wikisource:WikiProject Open Access; i thought we were waiting on wikicite thought leaders to provide a wishlist / implementation plan, about bibliographic metadata. i would make a project internet archive as a landing page. IA has engaged with us at wikimania, but we need to think through an action plan - what would you want them to do? what can we do for them? Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge21:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The second page "388" is the same as p. 388, but block by having the "ad" turned over. The "Ad" looks like an insert that is only a partial sheet, and there allows some of the previous page to be viewed when the leaf is turned in the book. The page is, effectively, blank. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:35, 5 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
Not that it won't render the same, I am just a stickler for keeping things uniform...Also, as far as references go, refs & notes are combined in the rest of the text as mere refs. You can refer to previous formatting examples. I did much proofreading from these volumes. I merely got burned out. Let me know if you would like help at any point. Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
yes - i salute your fine work there, it will take some study for me to replicate in the remainder. this volume is close, if i can help push it over the top for poetry month, that would be great. Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge14:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. I will "bookmark" the page. Let me know if I can help with block center at all. I can't necessarily speak technically, but perhaps about behavior. Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
I am here... Just with half a brain. This is stuff for my morning brain. Will "lower-roman" and "decimal" be spelled out like that in the Main as well? It is distracting from the poem/text, in my opinion. Not to be picky... Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
delayed response, yes "lower-roman" and "decimal" is the fallback, because we do not enable the symbol footnote functionality (admin locked), because "we" want to force numerical footnotes. don’t look on scriptorium, for the drama. Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge21:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
I am experiencing multi-project burnout at the moment—RL as well as here at WS (tis the season!), but will leave myself a Horace reminder at my to-do list. I would like to at least complete that volume sometime early in the New Year. Happy Holidays to you! Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! Hopefully I will be fully recovered by March :) but will keep an open mind about attending the edit-a-thon. While I appreciate the role WP plays, I much prefer editing Wikisource. Cheers back. Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
fwiw: I compiled some notes on footnotes etc. based on direction I was given at the time when I was working on these volumes. Don't know if you can make anything of them or if they can be helpful. Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
Also, I will not be at the helm much this week, but will take a look at Horace's progress in a few days (not that you have requested I do so; merely in regards to "ownership" issues I have—half kidding). Have a good Thanksgiving. Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
Mmm, yeah... I would have to object. The reflinks look bulky and distract (imo) from reading, and even if they could be simplified, you would have to apply the formatting to every other page in the volume (volumes, if you want to keep things uniform). I am not personally willing to implement the practice. Not in this case, anyway. Apologies if I undo... :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
I know... I'm sorry I am not keen on it; some pages which contain footnotes within footnotes, etc. are quite complicated enough, and perhaps if the practice was presented when I started on the volumes I might have been more open (my brain was slightly more active during that time). I hope I don't come across as unappreciative, I do appreciate your time and desire to replicate the original. Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
quite all right. i would go through and group references if i could. it is amazing we can actually replicate text that close, but we need a VE dashboard that makes it easier. Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge13:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello Slowking4,
I’m not sure if you’re the person to ask, but I want to import a book, and as a test page I had created User:Donald Trung/Annam and its minor currency (Toda)/Section I to see how I can best convert the book into wiki-format, however I am not really familiar with templates here, and I can't really use Wikitables for imported works. Also the source book is here, based on this, should I be calling the subdivisions of the book “chapters” or “sections”, I mostly tried to emulate the style of The Art of War (Sun) but I realised that that wasn't the only book here, and Annam and its minor currency doesn't seem to name it's subdivisions as either “sections” or “chapters”. I also saw that the reason why Sun Tzü’s book has “(Sun)” is because it could be ambiguously confused with a Machiavellian work of the same name, so when I’ll (re-)publish the book I'll be dropping the “(Toda)” part, as I am not planning on actually working on the import until February I just want your feedback on it, as of now I mostly plan on using “Donald Trung/Annam and its minor currency (Toda)/Section I” as a sandbox before I'm done on Dutch Wikipedia (I still have 3 articles to finish there) and import more museum 🎨 works from Flickr to Wikimedia Commons, but I don't want to leave that sandbox in bad quality.
I’ve already searched through most style guides but information on templates seem largely omitted. Also I would prefer for you to leave feedback on my talk page (see the “討論 🤙🏻” part of my signature), as I would probably check my Wikisource talk page more than yours. 😜
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Just wanted to let you know that this template exists for author page links to the work, and I am updating these now. If we have internal linking within the work, I will template with the lkpl equivalent tomorrow. — billinghurstsDrewth14:50, 23 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
If someone adds a copyvio notice, do not remove until the discussion is over. If the consensus is against me, then it will be removed, but until then the copyvio notice needs to continue to provide a link to the deletion discussion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
Umm, that is not a good approach to take, quite provocative. Nominating something is putting it before the community for discussion, nothing else. So, please leave nominations in place, and take part in any conversation. — billinghurstsDrewth01:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
yeah, about as provocative as blanking a page not under deletion discussion at commons, (and no prospect of a nomination). are you going to countenance, the "holier than commons"; "blank first and ask questions about the false positive later". this is the behavior of a commons admin or english admin. consensus trumps URAA enforcement. this editor needs to be shown the door. he does not add much value. Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge03:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
If you have concerns about an user's or an administrator's actions, then you should address it with them on their talk page, not repeatedly revert.Every administrator undergoes an annual confirmation process, and if you have concerns about me, or others, you can express those concerns during those respective confirmation processes. — billinghurstsDrewth04:27, 3 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
sorry, i would just as soon not interact with this low edit person. i find his and others exporting their toxic behavior quite sad. it is the same old "do what i tell you to do" form of "collaboration". and rest assured, it will be demotivating for my further work here. if i were to say "no confidence", would it make the slightest difference? i’ve never seen it before. Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge04:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
timeline
11:28, 1 January 2018 - commons village pump Radio Times discussion
12:04, 1 January 2018 - wikisource radio times transcription page started.
15:25, 1 January 2018 - wikisource page blanked
17:23, 1 January 2018 - wikisource copyright discussion started
19:35, 2 January 2018 - wikisource ANU discussion started
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
See my edit on the Wikipedia page w:Romesh Chandra Mitra of [23 March 2018] where I added in-line citations to EB1911. These edits were reverted because they were "... unnecessary citations from a source that we deprecate for Indian stuff." Do you know who the "we" is that decided EB1911 citations are not worthy? The citations I added were just deleted, not replaced with another source. I believe ones of the aims of Wikipedia is to include citations to statements, not delete them. Your thoughts? DivermanAU (talk) 20:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
user:DivermanAU btw thanks for cleaning up the EB1911 backlog. (now on the NIE and Appletons) this editor is making stuff up again. this is becoming more prevalent on english: rather than curating the references and links, and collaborating, they just edit war, and will not engage on talk. and an admin is worse than this, i.e. removing references and blocking. pity. if you wanted to call him on it, you could talk to the copyright police about "close paraphrasing" Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge21:58, 25 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.
You can find more information about this survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list.
Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Just a mention that when block center with breaks is used for poetry, poems that span more than one page require {{block center/s}}/e otherwise poems will not be aligned properly. I was going to do some editing of the PotM with some spare time, but noticed multiple formatting methods were being used and so held off until one method was agreed upon. I likely won't be doing much editing of the work, so I'll leave the decision to other editors. Thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
i was block centering by page for a red status. the formatting across pages does not work well. maybe i will return to potm when i get done with appletons. Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge03:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
No need for a red status. It's practically proofread as is. Why not just proofread? My thought is that if someone new comes along, they might think block centering by page is the way to go after looking at a page.What is it that does not work well formatting across pages? Londonjackbooks (talk) 08:34, 5 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 29% of Wikimedia contributors. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed. Take the survey now.
If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have design the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone.
If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thanks!
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 23 April, 2018 (07:00 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.
If you already took the survey - thank you! We will not bother you again. We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. To opt-out of future surveys, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement.
Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello. Just to say I doubt at this point I'll be able to make any more WMDC edit-a-thons, but perhaps if we ever move back to the area. It was good to have met you. See you here at WS otherwise! :) Best, Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I just posted a funny EB1911 discovery on PBS's WP talk page and pinged you, but I don't know whether you are more active there. No action required, just a curiosity. DavidBrooks (talk) 16:07, 12 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
hmm, well not wikipedia article yet. which would get a wikidata image. we don't really do article subjects, more like author pages, and don't have his medical works uploaded to transcribe. Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge03:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Please don't format and wordwrap half of a page and leave everything else. It is not helpful for people who rely on the text to follow the original line by line. In addition, using slanted quotation marks makes others' work harder when they are not matched. The slanted quotation mark is not an accepted quotation mark in English Wikisource, and is not even listed in Wikipedia under quotation marks.— Ineuw talk19:18, 23 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
the punctuation is how the keystroke comes out, cannot type straight quotes it "auto-corrects" to slant, except if using old editor toolbar which is now disabled. you need to provide a page and example if you want to discuss. Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge00:12, 25 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
i see you persist in targeting recent uploads. another method would be to target oldest or biggest. i should take a road trip to cambridge maryland to buy this editor a coffee. they could use some help.
This IP is our regular copydumper for drama. Never formats or improves, just dumps unformatted text and never interacts with the community. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Please come to http://sciencesource.wmflabs.org/ and help out. You should be able to create an account allowing me to track your edits - let me know soonest if that doesn't work out.
On the main page, the "data schema" link is for if you want to know what happens backstage. But the "Review tool" sidebar link is where the main action is. (This Wikibase site is like Wikidata in some look-and-feel ways, but much less of it is really human-readable.) If you follow a linked Q-number, you get a page about a paper, and instructions.
The results and display for a paper vary a lot. The aim of the game is to find a drug and a disease and a place in the paper where it says that the drug is a treatment for the disease. The MEDRS guideline standards should be applied. Obviously I'll review any edits you make.
1906 edition. there is an inquiry about the 1925 edition. worldcat appears to confuse the two. it would be nice to have a scan to see if there was a substantial amendment. Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge11:26, 1 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi. With your inability to upload to Commons, if you do upload in-scope works (djvu, pdf, or derivatives of these) here, then users can move them to Commons using the beta transfer tool. Feel welcome to have a list page of works that need moving. — billinghurstsDrewth23:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
I probably should have given a bit more context to that story. The general complaint was that we need a new visual editor made for Wikisource in mind, and this was just one instance of a long pattern of Wikisource being ignored by the WMF. It's certainly true to a large extent, but I decided to focus more on VE-aspect of what Satdeep Gill was talking about. –MJL‐Talk‐☖16:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
no, you did fine. as usual, the story is a long complicated one. we asked for VE on the wishlist for ages, and they gave it to us (along with the wikipedia menus). but the general failure to do good UX design is across all open software design. the "custom change on your CSS" is the symptom solve way rather than systemic change. small projects have always been ignored by WMF (wikisource may be better than average based on WMF emphasis on global south - Indic languages) maybe they will listen to Satdeep Gill. cheers -- Slowking4 ⚔ Rama's revenge14:13, 6 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Share your experience in this survey
Hi Slowking4,
The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikisource and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.
as i said elsewhere, i adopt the standard of civility that is enforced. the fact that civility is used to shut people up when enforcement is non-existent, is a miscarriage. and ironic User:Ajraddatz is being civility police, but i guess he has mellowed from 2016. [28]. it’s fine they want meta to become phabricator, and it will get as much traffic. Slowking4 ⚔ Rama's revenge22:31, 10 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Do you exist in social networks? Or somewhere outside this holding at all? Not to say I distrust many of Wikimedian stewards individually (for their personal trustworthiness), but they may be compelled to do things in interests of the mob of hypocrites and bigots. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:19, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
yes, i have refrained in using social media or involving allies. it just maddens the mob. the open letter method of negative feedback does not work, as we see with Donna Strickland (which is lesson not learned, because it implicates sacred cow AfC) its not that the stewards are compelled, but they are repelled by the emotional labor required to govern the mob. (which allows the rule by drama conduct to flourish and deter.) we need to organize a critical mass of civil people to stage a hostile takeover. Slowking4 ⚔ Rama's revenge17:49, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
I despise “civility” discourse at all. There is a minority for whom it actually matters and they are never able to agree with each other (e.g. you vs Ajraddatz). For the majority, indeed, “civility” means low level of criticism. Perhaps you know a bureau on Commons who makes serious edits (such as of user pages) without ever providing a summary, but this same bureau speaks in a very polite manner. I don’t value polite verbosity in user_talk or so if it is not supplemented with accountable editing. In “my” world the person could never rise above the rollback privilege. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:58, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Share your experience in this survey
Hi Slowking4,
A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Share your experience in this survey
Hi Slowking4,
There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal!
With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.
Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi. If you are using {{smaller}} and similar <span> templates, they need to be kept to inline editing (up to a paragraph). If you are covering text that is more than a paragraph, then we need to use a block template {{smaller block}}, or multiple uses of the span templates.
ok, i take it you mean, "across a line break." i have recently been using "smaller" for each line as required, unlike "center". there may be some older instances where i did smaller across lines. i was confused by this text image, which will required inserted image.
Yeah, it is all a bit of a nuisance. I think in terms of paragraphs. less than and equal to a paragraph, then span, and the formatting needs to be on the inside. greater than and equal to is a block, and that needs to be on the outside. So if mediawiki turns it into multiple paragraphs, eg. two hard returns, then it a block. You are correct that you can use multiple formatting. And NO, we haven't been the best at making our templates well named, though if you see "block" then it is pretty certain <div> formatting. — billinghurstsDrewth00:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
According to meta this is your home wiki. Is it nice(r) here? I mean, plenty of users on Commons are nice, but I don't like the CU team very much now. Alexis Jazz (talk) 20:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
User:Alexis Jazz yes, and get more work done. (for me 150k edits versus 100k edits on commons). check out Wikisource:Proofread_of_the_Month,or you could try [30]; since you know wikicode, it should be easy for you. they do not follow policy; it is not rule of rules, but rule by rules - i.e. rules weaponized to vindictively settle scores. i would not engage with the assholes. it only gives them excuses for their behavior. taking a break from commons would be prudent self-care. cheers. Slowking4 ⚔ Rama's revenge21:15, 25 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
User:Alexis Jazz, my, that escalated quickly. you see how indef is used to exert power only, i.e. "i blocked you now convince me to let you back." i wouldn't bother with any discussion on any wiki. it serves no purpose, with the unreasonable. rather i might wait a year, and ask for an unblock as clean start (although we know that is a false promise.) plenty to do here or on wikidata. Slowking4 ⚔ Rama's revenge01:09, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Jim, There is a lot of activity lately trying to delete some of your photos I uploaded last November. Apparently some of those are marked as Public Domain and there is a few editors very eager to delete them. You can see some of the discussions, here and here. I do not know if you care one way or the other, but I think it would be humorous if you change a license on flickr of those few images to CC-0 (or is you feel mischievous to CC-by-sa), so there would be no policy one can use to justify deletions. --Jarekt (talk) 02:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
yes, malignant assiduity. commons had previously deleted PD-mark transferred from english wikipedia, and OTRS declined to honor my email claim of authorship. in this case, no notice of deletion, but communication on flickr. no consideration of files in use. apparently, nominator is misrepresenting consensus, for considering the intent of good faith uploaders to flickr (i.e. [31]) rather they would prefer to destroy knowledge that does not check the boxes, and rules by the unaccountable OTRS. i would not recommend interacting with this editor. here you go- [32] cheers Slowking4 ⚔ Rama's revenge12:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
ok, changed the 2 in use [39], [40], the others can go - i really laughed at the warning template "It is disputed whether the copyright tag on this file is correct" - such is the pique of the thwarted deletionist. you have my utmost sympathy, but you realize how the farce tends to reinforce the bad attitude. Slowking4 ⚔ Rama's revenge16:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
While working on Psalms I came up with ideas/techniques that seem applicable elsewhere, e.g. Matthew. I wanted to get your impressions of a couple example changes to a random page, Matthew
Little tweaks, but I think they help. Do these tweaks seem reasonable to you?
I'm finding so many differences between the previous text we've had for years and the source. In the example page above, the old text had 'Judaea' and the source has 'Judea'. Poking at the 3rd page of the preface found re-ordered words, reinterpreted abbreviated words, and other oddities. All these years with some weird derived text. Yikes!
it is a perennial problem. i would ditch the margin note, as too hard. but raise the issue at discussion. and yes, compromises were made at gutenberg, hence the impetus for scan-backed work, so readers can see the compromises made. cheers. Slowking4 ⚔ Rama's revenge10:22, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You asked me a few questions about my idea for archiving POTUS tweets back on 10/12. I appreciate your doing this. I was slow to answer them - for which I apologize - but I did post a reply on 10/24 which may have escaped your notice. Any further feedback on the proposed project would be greatly appreciated, thanks. Dennis the Peasant (talk) 03:26, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello! I missed your demo and talk yesterday at the conference. I have been using enWS for a few years. Was looking forward to meeting you and others interested in the topic. Wishing you well. Maybe in a future conference we'll get to meet. Cheers. - DutchTreat (talk) 15:03, 14 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
At the beginning you gave me some tips through preliminary work. But if I want to edit my side (yellow) I can choose a maximum of yellow, no green. But in order to make the book finished, this is necessary. On the help page, as I understand it, it also says that it should be done by two authors. I'm from Germany so maybe I don't put my word so clearly. --Riquix (talk) 15:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. I noticed you've taken an interest in this work again, or maybe I didn't look carefully. When I found it it looked like it was abandoned over a year, and I took it up as the theme was of interest, at first the Poncas and later I decided to do the whole thing. I use a different style: curly quotes and line breaks preserved, I notice are the main difference from your style. The original text layer I found was pretty disordered, as I think I've found previously with PDFs, so I've just been doing the OCR from scratch using the Wikisource OCR button, and this was much easier to work from. Would you like to cooperate on this work? I'd like to keep my style. Library Guy (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
about formatting. I have validated the pages you proofread (thank you!), but I updated the formatting to what I have begun using for the work. I realize technically speaking that some of the changes are insignificant, but I am a bit obsessive about uniformity. So please do not take it personally :) Help out as you please! Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:30, 28 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
yeah, i tried to use dotted template a time or two, but it is cranky, does not work well.
i was just working the red pages, given all the whinging at "non-proofread" - apparently i'm the only one, with a million page backlog; everybody else is proofreading their own works. we are keeping up with the French, except for all the red pages, which some generate with bots.
yes, eventually we could make scotsman like eb1911, cruise through and create "articles", and use as a source for wikipedia, but it will take years. not really a plan but a direction. --Slowking4 亞 Farmbrough's revenge01:53, 8 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
We can set up something through the Index:'s css files, so if you need a hand in that regard, chat to me or Inductiveload. Typically if you can format the first line to how you want something to look, we can transfer through to the css file. — billinghurstsDrewth22:45, 28 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The community consensus is that we're no longer accepting editions of books created by distributed proofreading (such as at Project Gutenberg) that has been turned into scans. The copy you linked of The Sun Also Rises is a distributed proofreading copy that was posted on the internet in 2015, and then turned into a scan. These sorts of scans are now frowned upon here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:01, 1 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I have removed it fro the blacklist as it is less spammed these days, and we can revisit it if it reappears. With all of these additions, the removal is simply making a cogent case for the removal and having the argument showing that there is more value than less value in having the domain available. Cogent case is more than "I don't like it being blocked." — billinghurstsDrewth21:54, 28 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
Noooooo, never use CropTool to extract images from compressed files like DjVu or PDF unless you literally have no other choice. See H:EXTRACT for what horrors text-centric compression can do to images.
Thanks. What got my attention in the first place was the reference to "SARS-CoV-2" and "coronavirus" on your user page (plus the fact it was right on top of the quotes :-). Also since I am interested in topics to do with wikimedia history. Nice sig btw. Cheers, Ottawahitech (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
ELLO from our West Coast Wikisource project. There's been quite a bit uploaded recently, so a quick list of things you might be interested in helping with.
Baughan, Blanche Edith. (1898). Verses. A medium-sized poetry collection; the table of contents has been created but otherwise lots of poems to transcribe.
Drummond, James. (1907.) The Life and Work of Richard John Seddon. We've solved the problem of the missing page, so it's now a matter of proofing and validating the text. I need to upload the plates into Commons.
Faris, Irwin. (1941). Charleston: Its Rise and Decline. The photos are all in Commons and just need to be inserted into pages, and validated, and then we're done.
Hickey, Patrick Hodgens. (1925). "Red" Fed. Memoirs. Fascinating and short labour history, almost all just text. A quick proofread.
Reid, R. C. (1886) (2nd Edition) Rambles on the Golden Coast of New Zealand. I've uploaded all the ornate capitals and page ornaments (which include the ones in this post) to Commons, so all that's left to do is add them to pages.
Lots more books coming, but some of these we can polish off quickly so they can be loaned out as library books. Drop me a line if anything's not clear or leave a message on the book's Talk page. Happy proofreading!
—Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 09:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I saw on the Scriptorium that you have a new signature. Heads up that it looked a lot to me like triple parentheses. This could be a misreading and it could also be that you're using it in solidarity or to say that you are proud of your own Jewish heritage, but just to let you know, at least some could see it and think, "This guy's a Nazi". —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯23:17, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Slowking4, I came across an old tidbit you wrote back in 2017 which compared the enwp Teahouse to the Helpdesk and was surprised at your statement that the T was more successful than HD and your interpretation of why that was so. As an indef-blocked entity on enwp, one of the things I really miss is the access to people like User:PrimeHunter who I still remember fondly from the HD at enwp.
no, wikisource tends to respond, with person to person help. editors tend to come and do work here, it’s a small group who find the place and can edit in wikicode.
it’s about the practice not the structure. in the intervening years, teahouse has become like helpdesk; for a time it was better. we do not train facilitators, we depend on individual initiative, and tl;dr, which is problematic. and the over-reliance on blocks is a cultural failure; they could adopt the facilitator methods of PrimeHunter, but it’s not cruel enough.
I have not visited Wikisource recently, don't remember much about the place and its inhabitants, and don't want to ruffle any feathers. I am trying to add a page about the Son of Hamas at enwikiquote and it would be great if I could mine some quotes from an electronic version of the book which I was hoping to find here (I am a terrible typist).
The book says:
"The Library of Congress has catalogued the hardcover as follows:
Yourself, Mosab Hassan
Son of Hamas ...
I searched Wikisource for Son of Hamas and cannot find it and also cannot figure out how The Library of Congress works here. Can you or someone else at Wikisource help? btw the book was copyrighted in 2010. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 17:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I don’t know if this is rude, but I felt like I should ask you instead of being a public nuisance. I was going through not-proofread indexes and found Index:Under two flags ouida.djvu (which you created back in 2015), which is 1912 edition vs. Index:Under two flags (IA undertwoflags00ouid).pdf (recently created), a 1902 illustrated edition. Would you be inclined to merge work/delete the other index? I’m trying to reduce the number of such indexes, and have been working a bit on not-proofread pages (but not as much as your admirable work). I felt like you would understand my intentions, even if my actions may sound somewhat rude. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:20, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
sad, i did not circle back and finish the djvu. i would just pick one to complete, and abandon the other. a redirect would work also. could link to both editions at author page. (i’m not much one for "tidying", as there are many editions over on commons, and easy to duplicate indexes.) we need better duplicate detection. --Slowking4 ‽ digitaleffie's ghost02:52, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, I only found out about the duplicate because the two indexes were listed back-to-back at the list of not-proofread indexes. Even going through all of those would not be enough, because more files come in from Commons. I guess the best idea would be to connect all currently-available indexes to authors, and hope that people check authors beforehand. But, I mean, talk about another long-term project, right? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 04:02, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
it was not a problem when using IAuploader was the major road block, but now with a million books at commons, duplicates will be more common. I guess adding a check of author pages, as pre-work, will be necessary.--Slowking4 ‽ digitaleffie's ghost20:07, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Please change your editing habit of enclosing each reduced font paragraph of the page with {{smaller}}. The reason I don't use it, is because the text size is 82% but the line height is of a 100% font size which makes it unsightly. Let the Main namespace page looks be your guide because that is what gets printed.
The line height of 100% font is 1.40 of the font height. The line height of 85% font is 140*.85=1.20. {{fs85}}, {{fs85/s}} with {{fs85/e}} use calculated line-heights for paragraphs and pages. Thanks — ineuw (talk) 06:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
My issue with you enclosing every paragraph instead of the page.
You are right in that I didn't prepare a guide (yet). This is because my projects rarely draw interest.
50%+ of the suffrage volumes are in small print. At first, I was considering doing all in a single font size, but then I relented for æsthetic reasons and accepted the extra work.
{{fs85/s}} is the template used in the project for reduced font size, because it has proportional line-height (row height).
If the whole page is the same font-size as the end of the previous page then you place the start "/s" template in the header. If the following page continues with the font-size, place the "/e" template in the footer. 1 set of templates for the whole page. It is also OK if you don't bother with the font sizes, only the text. I am committed to checking every page of the 6 volumes and standardize it.
It's up to the community to modify and add the line heights of the {{smaller}} and {{smaller block/s}} templates.
Standard monitor displays are limited in reproducing text characters with ~4 pixels. Font-sizes 83% to 87% look the same, etc. Here some of the %%% we experimented with, a decade ago. 69%, 75%, 80% 83%-87%, 87%-92%, 95%.
No worries... I had visions of you painstakingly correcting each apostrophe you saw, so thought letting you know would save use both a bit of time 😂 --YodinT15:27, 3 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
my - that's ambitious. well there are ways, but i don't know how easy it is. for example Template:Rule where style - "style=background-color:orange;color:inherit;border:1px solid black" . I've never done that, being content with plain text. I would suggest using Template:RunningHeader with a style in fields, but it would take finding a friendly template, and trial and error. --Slowking4 ‽ digitaleffie's ghost16:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Works done in curly quotes should be fully in curly quotes. You should not be stripping them from works where the original editors set up the work to use curly quotes. Please restore curly quotes to the pages where you removed them. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The {{nop}} template must be placed on it's own separate line. This has always been true, and has explicitly been in the documentation for the template since 2010. I ask you to go back through your edits of at least the past month and correct every time you've moved the template to the end of the preceding line. In future, please leave this template on a separate line. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
that's interesting. is there a functional difference in the placement of nop? it works regardless of gaps or soft line return. i could change this. but for what functional purpose? I see you removed autopatroled, are you sure you want to do that? --Slowking4 ‽ digitaleffie's ghost11:59, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I clicked on a nice photograph on wikipedia and found myself at the commons. "What is this?" I asked and navigated around some and answered myself "This is a mess."
I saw from there how software dumps of lists (however prettily they were dumped) contained typos. Typos from one place to another and then a few more.
The reason I bring this up here, is that while at commons, I noticed a relationship between my watchlist and votes for things. At wikidata, there are escalation softwares, where if one would like to get into it, it will match you in ferociousness or whatever but always an aggressive stance they take. I quit looking at watchlist there as well and my life is better, even if the data suffers from software itching for a fight.
One "trigger" was funny. It was for something here that got reflected there. I ran into one of those "I don't know what this symbol is" templates, and it was just a very very ornate ampersand. So, I put the ampersand on and took the template off. That triggered the removal of an article from its parent magazine data, the title: something like "by whose authority". I think that the author was ultimately sorry for the whole bot trigger thing that some idiot did not recognize &.
The software reacts to the fact that I care about what I am doing. Perhaps you were accosted with your integrity? I am just guessing, but integrity seems to be the right thing about you. Maybe even more than caring. Me, I am too daring to have so much integrity that I can defend it. Like I don't lie, but I do stupid things, accidentally, thinking they will be great. But not lying and also being super conscientious of what you do and how you do it. That is integrity and I would like for you to consider that maybe you were under a software attack at this core part of your being.
About lies and the use of the word lie. Long before computers and 'pedias, I started to assume that people don't lie. Just simple! Just assume that and get on with life. Decades of this, and I have stopped passing along gossip, well, malicious gossip because as a way of life, it is not always successful or easy. But lies have a way of breaking the good things in ones life or to come back around and bite the liar. Maybe it will take decades, but lies are thin ice that one starts walking on when they tell one.
I will not accuse you of telling lies, but I do that for everyone, until I actually catch one. So that is no big deal. I will never ever attack your integrity, however, as it towers over mine. I will just enjoy it.
One thing about bot watch here, the bots know your gender. Me, a person, I can only guess, but the bots can get into your preferences. That is why they put that config in there: for the software. So, software gets its pronouns right. People learn how to communicate without the pronoun.
And, you are right about the commons! I don't know what Queen Annes Revenge is and I am from there. I also studied physics. Yep, 4 years of a difficult language so that I can accurately describe what happens when something gets thrown. And! I wasn't very good at it either. I did learn this though: There are a lot of different ways that quarks move. Top and bottom are the most common and extremely simple; therefore, good for simple people. I avoid them. Charm my way, or strange my way, or left or right spin my way, away from that simple shit. You should do this too, I think. You are not simple. Modern physics is less about how things get thrown and more about how things interact; they just had to get really really small eyes to see it. Bot authors write for tops. Bot authors are simple about people.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 01:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)Reply